From 6f19300dd87229646a96f61a9f1ae3a8b98d1c17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gorhill Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:48:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] fleshing out --- README.md | 18 ++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e467993b4..b398979b2 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -4,15 +4,19 @@ See [Change log](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Change-log) for latest c An efficient blocker for Chromium-based browsers. Fast and lean. -Chromium on Linux 64-bit: -![screenshot](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/ss-chromium-2.png) +

+ Chromium on Linux 64-bit
+ +

-Opera 22 on Windows 7 32-bit: -![screenshot](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/ss-opera-1.png) +

+ Opera 22 on Windows 7 32-bit
+ +

-The above screenshots were taken after running my +The above screenshots were taken after visiting many [reference benchmark](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Comparative-benchmarks-against-widely-used-blockers:-Top-15-Most-Popular-News-Websites) -plus a bit of random browsing. All blockers were active at the same time, +links plus a bit of random browsing. All blockers were active at the same time, thus they had to deal with exactly the same workload. Before the screenshot was taken, I left the browser idle for many minutes so as to let the browser's garbage collector kicks in. @@ -33,6 +37,8 @@ memory of ABP. [infamous vim test](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption), once with only ABP as the active extension, and once with only µBlock as the active extension. (Other extensions may also add their own memory footprint.) +- "It consumes less memory because it doesn't block as well" + - Actually it blocks more efficiently. See [_benchmark_](#benchmarks) below. #### Regarding reviews in various web store