From e51545e68586d63e67a2cb149884251894e28e9c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:14:10 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20=C2=B5Block=20vs.=20ABP:=20efficiency?= =?UTF-8?q?=20compared=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index b06d889..23b04fa 100644 --- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ Extensions have their own memory footprint, but they also causes increased memor Now keep in mind this is the added footprint for a very simple web page which has no embedded frames. You can multiply the added footprint on the main page by the number of frames embedded on a page, so page with frames can end up consuming a _lot_ more memory than they would have otherwise. For instance, a very simple web page with a couple of `iframe` in it, [The Acid3 Test](http://acid3.acidtests.org/): -![uBlock](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/acid3test-mem.png) +![uBlock](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/acid3test-mem.png)
+Added memory footprint: Left = no extension. Middle = Adblock Plus. Right = µBlock. A good stress test which further demonstrate this is the [infamous vim test](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption).