&#62; There are Javascript/CSS demos out there that are much more dynamic/interactive than the average Flash based ad that still use less CPU.<p>I don't agree with this in general, but let's say that I did: Of course native things will run faster than a sandboxed plugin. Unfortunately Flash still does WAY more than browsers do.<p>&#62; In a similar vein, there are other Safari plugins out there that do much more than the average Flash based ad that use less CPU.<p>Oh, like what? Some specialized thing that does one thing only? Comparing other plugins to eachother won't work unless you are comparing the same code vs. each other. Actually, it would be nice to compare flash vs. silverlight in a pure performance test using "real life" situations like video and motion graphics.<p>&#62; The Flash plugin uses more resources than people expect it to based on their experience with Flash in Windows, as well as their experience with other technologies on Safari/OS X. I don't think it is a collective hallucination.<p>So now we are back to Mac vs. Windows, and it's been covered enough in this thread that OS X is more limiting than windows when it comes to browser plugins, and it sounds to me like it's up to Apple to fix it, or for some other browser maker to come along and do it better, so we'll have to wait and see.