From 67455eea0aa7d29e6be8a4fb8ebec2c50dd4d6df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:19:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Debunking "uBlock Origin is less efficient than Adguard" claims (markdown) --- ..."uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" index c6b3deb..e472b12 100644 --- "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" +++ "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" @@ -4,7 +4,9 @@ More specifically, debunking [@christianbute](https://twitter.com/christianbute) > Yes, even uBlock Origin slowed down my browsing experience. On stock settings or custom lists, doesn't matter. Don't want to mention others -My objective measurements, benchmarking on Chromium 59 on Linux 64-bit. +I can't unfortunately investigate this claim on Microsoft Edge, as I do not have Windows. However, both extensions uses the same code on Microsoft Edge as they do on Chromium, thus I can at least benchmark with Chromium. + +My objective measurements, benchmarking on Chromium 59 on Linux 64-bit: uBO 1.13.8 - default settings/lists