@npro Teehee, i strongly endorse/support/concur. 😊
I have stubbornly persisted on & off for the past few days to go through most of my large suite of regular fav sites, one by one tuning uBO to them. In most cases i was pleasantly surprised that i seemed able to control these sites nearly as well as with uM ... but there's now three of my favs that simply refuse to work as well in uBO as they do in uM. The granular matrix component control available in uM is simply superb.
Then, once i was done, i decided to take a sticky-beak at the comparative resource consumption. I assumed they would be more or less the same, hence i was pretty surprised to discover that as well as its surgically-precise tuning control [or more likely, exactly because of it], uM wiped the floor with uBO. Whilst i'm not, anyone running on limited hardware should like this uM advantage.
alt text
Though it's taken a fair bit of effort & a lot of time to reach this point, i'm actually pleased to have done it, because now i have a renewed quantified rationale to explain to myself, anytime in future that i start wondering anew why am i using uM rather than uBO.
There is only one thing for which uBO would be a better choice in Vivaldi than uM, for anybody who likes using a UI Zoom < 100% ... uBO's UI seems not to break as badly as uM's UI does.
