We're not arguing this part right? "As the numbers will show, Flash performs far better in Vista versus Mac OS X running on the same hardware, and it actually

We're not arguing this part right? "As the numbers will show, Flash performs far better in Vista versus Mac OS X running on the same hardware, and it actually improved slightly with the version 10 update." http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-fl... (OS X + Safari + Flash 9 Plugin = CPU hog) (OS X + Safari + Flash 10 Plugin = slightly less of a CPU hog) (Windows + Firefox + Flash 10 Plugin = CPU friendly) I think that part we can agree on. It's unfortunate Ars didn't report on (Windows + Safari + Flash 10) or (OS X + Firefox + Flash 10) since those would have been a nice data points. I'll also admit this article is a bit dated but the point is that here is an example where Adobe tweaked some code and claimed a 3x increase in speed. Users were complaining all that time and some people were blaming the Plugin API. A performance problem can have multiple contributors. My point is that you would think Adobe would push on it with all of their talent since it's in their best interest to optimize. I think though, that it's only computer geeks who realize it's caused by a plugin (for whatever reason) and the general public just thinks "my computer is slow". I still have never seen a good analysis/description of what is flawed in the Safari plugin API. In the end, I just don't think there's enough published data to settle this.