Linux Mac

Mac OS X Yosemite, From The Perspective Of A Linux User

Danny Stieben 22-12-2014

It’s been a while since Mac OS X 10.10 “Yosemite” has been released into the wild What's New In OS X 10.10 "Yosemite"? OS X is evolving both in terms of looks and features, and just like last year's Mavericks update, Yosemite will be another free download. Read More , so we have a pretty good idea of how it performs. Mac OS X is also sometimes used as the poster child for a clean and elegant interface (most of the time, anyways). As a Linux writer, it’s my duty to make comparisons not only amongst Linux distros The Best Linux Operating Distros The best Linux distros are hard to find. Unless you read our list of the best Linux operating systems for gaming, Raspberry Pi, and more. Read More , but also against the competition.


With Yosemite out and a new wave of distro releases out, it’s time to make the comparison between Yosemite and and these new releases. Which performs better? Which looks better? What can Linux learn from Mac OS X? Let’s find out.

User Interface

First up, the most noticeable change in Yosemite is the user interface. In short, there are quite a few changes, but at the same time not very much. The user interface in itself is just about identical to what it has been through all versions of Mac OS X. It’s still the same familiar interface that Mac users have known for years. Yet at the same time, it got a visual update.

The theme? Flat. Whether you like it or not, the hot areas of design are still flat elements and colors, and a lot of elements have been flattened. These are more noticeable in menus and the window control buttons. The design did need a bit of modernization after remaining stagnantly unchanged for years, so this is a welcome improvement.

The user interface on Linux, of course, varies a lot as there are loads of desktop environments to choose from. Unity is pretty similar to Mac OS X in a lot of respects, with the exception that the “dock” is permanently on the left side of the screen. Aesthetically, KDE is most similar to the Mac OS X interface The New KDE Plasma 5 Desktop Is Gorgeous -- Here's How To Try It While the KDE Frameworks is considered to be stable, not all things KDE have been modernized. However, you can use other methods to try out KDE 5 until it's widely available. Read More with the silver and blue color theme. If you want something different, there’s Cinnamon, MATE, or Gnome Shell. The upside to all these different choices is that, well, you have choices! You can customize your system to look however you want; with Mac OS X, there’s not a whole lot of customization available. Even with the most extreme customizations, a Mac OS X system is still recognizably so.

Winner: Mac OS X for tried and true familiarity; Linux for customization.



Performance on its own is pretty hard to figure out just by regular usage, as both systems perform well. Instead, we’ll have to resort to using benchmarks to determine the difference in performance. A lot of tests have been done on the Web that consistently show that recent releases of Linux distros tend to perform better than Yosemite, in both CPU and graphics performance. In fact, one popular site’s benchmarks showed that Ubuntu won in 12 out of 15 tests, which included all gaming-related benchmarks.

There are also massive differences in the amount of RAM that each operating system uses immediately after a reboot. I checked both my Mac OS X and Linux partitions’ RAM usage immediately after boot, and determined that Mac OS X used around 3.6GB of RAM while Linux only used ~600MB of RAM. Both systems had a roughly equal amount of startup applications, and the Linux system was running the Cinnamon desktop environment. Even with the heaviest of desktop environments, KDE, I still wouldn’t have used more than 1GB after booting up.

However, there are some hidden pros and cons to Linux. Linux does run on more hardware than Mac OS X does, but Linux may not always work 100% with Apple hardware, something that Mac OS X is (obviously) great at. In my case with a MacBook Pro Retina, my webcam doesn’t work under Linux and there’s no proper implementation for HiDPI support — it’s a work in progress Improving Linux HiDPI Support For Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Cinnamon And Firefox Running Linux on a system with a HiDPI display, you may have noticed that everything is either tiny or perhaps just looks weird. We'll help you get a better experience on your HiDPI display. Read More , but far from perfect.

Winner: Linux.


Power Usage

Although Linux tends to be leaner than Mac OS X, it’s not the best at power management. This is especially the case when compared to Mac OS X, since OS X is tuned specifically for Apple hardware while Linux has to be more generic in its power management. On my MacBook Pro Retina, the battery life on Linux is on average two-thirds of what it would be on Mac OS X (say 6 hours on Linux compared to 9 hours on OS X). That’s a pretty major difference, and a good reason why I sometimes have to run Mac OS X when I know I have a long day ahead of me even though I’d prefer to use Linux.

There are some tools in Linux to help you try to control your power usage, such as TLP which automatically adjusts variables to improve power usage 7 Simple Tips to Improve Your Linux Laptop's Battery Life How can you squeeze more time from your battery and enjoy a truly portable Linux computing experience? Read More , and PowerTOP, a tool to help you determine what’s sucking up power PowerTOP Will Maximize Your Linux Laptop's Battery Life On Linux laptops, one of the most common complaints is that the battery life isn't that great. You can find out what settings are best for your system using PowerTOP. Read More . Even then, it’s still not quite as efficient as Mac OS X — most likely due to the quality/progress/feature availability of the drivers.

Winner: Mac OS X.

Linux Isn’t Perfect, But Holds Up

After these comparisons, Yosemite and Linux are tied at three apiece. And I don’t really want to break that tie because, although I love Linux and like to “hate” on OS X because it’s proprietary and from Apple, I have to give credit in some areas to Apple’s operating system. While the user interface may not be very innovative, it is certainly familiar and still good looking. It works well (although not quite as fast as Linux), and it has fantastic power management for great battery life. And those elements combined are why Macs, especially for laptops, have become much more popular in recent years.


So what can Linux learn from Mac OS X and improve on? While I don’t think that there’s ever going to be a truly recognizable desktop environment (although Unity is arguably the closest one to that ideal Ubuntu 11.04 Unity - A Big Leap Forward For Linux It's here. The newest version of Ubuntu sports an entirely new user interface: Unity. It also includes a much-improved Software Center, alongside the usual updates for the thousands of free programs Ubuntu offers. Canonical decided... Read More ), Linux can still pride itself on a customizable experience. Instead, it just still needs to focus on improving hardware support and especially power management. Linux definitely has a lot going for it already, but there are certain things — especially those related to improving portability — that could be better. And I know that because the open source community has to work on these things on its own, it’ll be hard to achieve those goals.

What are some things you think Linux needs to improve on? Let us know in the comments!

Image Credit: Phoronix (Michael Larabel)

Related topics: Linux Distro, OS X Yosemite.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Shaswata Das
    June 18, 2019 at 8:51 am

    Now, at 2k19. Linux just wins all..
    Stupid article.

  2. TheGreatCabbage
    July 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    Unity is the most recognisable desktop environment? Now it's dead...

  3. nordin
    April 2, 2017 at 11:05 am

    i just wanted to say that Power usage is not a downside.
    to make it simple, for example
    you can't drive a Ferrari at 200Km/h and expect it to consume the same Energy as a regular car going at 80km/h

  4. marc
    March 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    "However, there are some hidden pros and cons to Linux. Linux does run on more hardware than Mac OS X does, but Linux may not always work 100% with Apple hardware, something that Mac OS X is (obviously) great at. In my case with a MacBook Pro Retina, my webcam doesn’t work under Linux and there’s no proper implementation for HiDPI support — it’s a work in progress, but far from perfect."

    Oh, yeah ... about that. MACOS DOESN'T RUN ON ANYTHING ELSE THAN MACS!!!

    Come on ...

    • Inigo Montoya
      March 22, 2017 at 3:46 am

      You forgot about Hackintosh.

    • E Cray
      October 3, 2017 at 5:03 am

      Guess you've never seen or heard of a Hackintosh
      Mac OSX running on non Mac Hardware

  5. Chris
    May 19, 2015 at 1:14 am

    This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever labored through. It was like reading Jerry Springer. Before you decide to comment, check your grammar and spelling. Next, know WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! Comment threads and forums are the Internet's version of plumber crack!

    Linux vs OS X is incredibly subjective. Use whichever you prefer since each posses strengths and weaknesses.

    I use both -> mind blown.

      February 4, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      Thank you for posting this! IT MADE MY LIFE!! LOL

  6. JC
    April 21, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    To Anonymous in the previous post. You are the one that thinks OS X is based on LInux, and that proves a point. Some OS X users don't really know the origin of their operating system, nor how it works or doesn't work in enterprise. Most enterprises use Windows OS. I am not advocating Windows, I just know what works in large environments. There is a reason you don't bind OS X machines to Active Directory. It is because they just don't work very well in it. Sure you an use Open Directory and struggle with that for a while, but eventually you will grow tired of this and find yourself thinking, "Why did I spend on my money on this?" For one OS X machine, I could have purchased possibly four or five Dells. Good Dells. I love Linux. And Linux behaves better than any OS X BSD/Darwin machine ever will.

    • Anonymous
      July 9, 2015 at 3:52 pm

      How do you seriously keep a job with child like lack of any computer related knowledge. You must be a phone salesman. Apple has been proven to be less expensive than any Wintel/Linux machine of equal performance for as long as I can remember. Granted if you want a $400 piece of junk Dell, go get one. Mini would be better and cheaper, and works. I have 5 different mac mini's as smtp,load balances,IDS, etc. Plus you can put it in your pocket and take it home. This ill-formed anti-mac stuff is so juvenile. We use Apple OS,SANS and even used a Mac mini on the shuttle craft at NASA ,because even we could not make a better small computer design. Every OS has a place. MAC has the best DT, Linux great for VM's, BSD for router/switches/firewalls etc. I would never use Linux as a desktop, way to much of a pain over Mac BSD, and it is slower. But than I would never use MAC BSD at a server. Maybe as a Website, like we do at NASA, but I prefer Linux as a tomcat/apache website.

      • Anonymous
        November 1, 2015 at 10:13 pm

        he's not a phone sales man - seems that he know what he's talking...

        At NASA, probably, they use levitation already, if you want to come down to Earth, then please do not try to compare 400-500$ range. Instead, try Apple vs Dell at the maximum cost of the most expensive Mac for desktop - then on the same price range check what you can take from Dell - you will see at least 2x performance (minimum 200%) - for the same price. That mean for about 7000 - 8000 USD you can buy better hardware. Dell boxes for professionals are professional - no more, no less. Dell already tried what I've suggested you before and their numbers are much higher than my numbers ... on some 3D rendering tests, for the same amount of money, overall performance was about 5 times better (the graphic card was superior).

        Between Apple and Dell, on the same price range, an Hollywood image editor or an architect they will choose allways Dell - unless they are iLife zealots (out of this world anyway).

        The same professional DTP designer / editor will choose probably an Philips or Eizo screen over any Giga-Ultra-HD Apple Thunderbolt display (just because their color gamut is bigger than AdobeRGB and Apple gamut is below).

        If is all about mini computers - probably Lenovo Thinkcentre M83 gives a better performance than mini mac for few dollars less - and it's a little bit smaller than mac mini (Wow .. the yellow man can do better mini computers than Apple and NASA ?).

        And above all, is not about so called anti-mac trend - it's all about Apple 'wonder world of things' mass idiosyncrasy proudly sustained by the company - no any hardware superiority even on the phone market ( but the wild wild west need legends and heroes) - LgG4 for example was and is superior to any S6 ( yep better camera ) - don't believe ? - check hardware reviews and you will find at least 7 or 8 smartphones with better hardware on the same price range or even cheaper.

        Btw - I am not against macs or osx / ios or iLifers - anyone can choose, it's a world of options - but I am against false claims and tech lies. Mac, Win, Lin, or XYZos = a question of 'de gustibus', a matter of taste and need and should be also a question of truth (out of legends and myths).

        Personally, I'm all linux - I think is faster, I think I have better partitions, and I can't have in OSX the same degree of UI customisation as I have now with Synapse, AWN, Compiz and DockbarX ( pure and simple I have more options on desktop with Compiz than Yosemite has now ..that mean controll over almost every aspect of any window - where to go, when, how to behave, to dissapear ?, to roll-up ?, etc. - and I talk now about window management which is way better on desktop side as on both Win and Mac).

        On the professional / gaming side - I usually play those games listed as faster under Linux than in OSX (check OSX vs Ubunu in Phoronix and you will find how far Yosemite is behind Ubuntu on this regard, talking about OpenGL implementation and video drivers, and please take this just as a "proof of a linux zealot" becase you will never use a Linux desktop anyway) and on my office hours I use Netbeans, Atom, LAMPP stack, Skype for audio video calls, Recoll for desktop search (after content or filenames), Teamviewer for remote assistance, VLC as video player, Thunderbird to read and organize e-mails, the same software collection as I was using under Windows - nothing more nothing less - all works perfect.

        And here comes the (linux) hammer. This story is available, sadly, only for me - not many linux user will put the same amount of work on tweaking their desktops - my actual desktop looks and behaves better than Yosemite or Windows 10, but this a very custom case (including GTK theme). Most linux users will use just the vanilla install, which by default brings up just the basic tools / functionality. Therefore my story is not kinda "Linux Uber Alles", but a proof that a well tweaked linux desktop can really be better (in many respects) than Win / Mac desktops because it has everything under the hood (only in a lazy state). Therefore a linux deskop may not be a choice / advantage for probably more than 90% of humankind... Folder closed. Windows for people, Mac for people, Linux Desktop still only for linux geeks && brave enough / hard to stress people.

  7. Alex
    April 14, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    Well nothing is perfect! Nor Linux, Nor Mac OS X. Linux is not as developed as Mac OS X. However Linux wins at the performance, as Mac OS X uses a lot of RAM for nothing. It's also meaningless to compare 2 Unix systems like that. However Linux wins almost every existing OS (except BSD or such OSes) because it gives you a whole bunch of choices. You can tweak a system as you give shape to a peace of clay. You can also take other, ready pieces of software, like ready themes (Numix, Humanity, Ambance, Oxygen, Greybird, Bluebird... ), desktop environments (Gnome, Unity, Pantheon, LXDE, XFCE, KDE, Mate... ), window managers (Compiz, Ratpoison, Gala, Awesome, XFWM4, KWM... ) and more, and I could name a thousand more. And of course there are a thousand more ready, complete Linux Distributions, each one with its own perspective and personality, like Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, RHEL, Fedora, Gentoo, Mandriva, Manjaro, and also more depentent ones, like Deepin, Elementary OS, UbuntuMATE, Mageia, Open Mandriva... If you do not like something you can tweak it at your own needs. If you don't like the whole thing you can replace it with something ready. And if you do not like the whole OS, change it. You have millions of choices and places to teak and personalize. In most other systems nothing is shown to you and nothing can be tweaked. Imagine that your OS is a man how makes you tea. You ask him "what's in there?" and he says "You don't need to know". Would you drink it? However you take whatever you get served in a commercial, hardly personalizable OS. In Linux you can see what you get served, as the projects are open and can easily and legally be decompiled. And if you don't like something you can change it. Easily, Legally. That's where Linux wins a lot, and leaves every other commercial OS behind and makes it's own light road through the darkness of companies and money.

  8. a-nony-mouse
    March 16, 2015 at 7:40 am

    According to this article, http:// tech crunch .com/2012/04/19/an-interview-with-millenium-technology-prize-finalist-linus-torvalds/ Torvalds puts linux on his macbook air. Thought that was interesting. Maybe he'll get the power stuff fixed.

  9. JC
    March 10, 2015 at 4:46 am

    OS X is complete garbage. I have to work a whole office of these pieces of crap. Linux machines would be better. Windows machines would also be better. OS X is not made for enterprise. It is made to babysit. It has so many terrible bug, crashes, and quirks that I despise using it. It's GUI is terrible and the command line sucks. It is a memory hog. You can't even get to the terminal without the GUI. Sorry no ctrl +alt +F1-F8. It hangs with some applications at random. Oh, and the Apple software sucks so bad. Ever use disk utility. You can't change anything while a drive if formating or wiping. I have to bypass the Application and run dd from the terminal to wipe two drives at the same time. And don't even get me started with iCal (Calendar), what a pile of dog crap that is. My God, this is how I make money. Thank you, Apple for make garbage, so I can maintain it. If it was all Linux I would be out of work. And slow my god, my laptop from 2007 runs faster with Linux than a brand new Apple.

    Linux is superior to OS X . Windows 8.1 is superior to OS X. OSX bite the big one you steaming poo.

    • Anonymous
      April 21, 2015 at 5:26 am

      You're a complete idiot. The fact that your grammar is worse than my 10 year old cousin explains most of your useless rant that makes absolutely no sense. Apple has made a enterprise OS which is why businesses use Macbook's. Also OS X is based on linux, if you love linux how the hell do you not like OS X? OS X is refined and vastly superior to Windows 8.1. The fact that Apple even has bootcamp for people like you who don't know what they are talking about is even more sad. Apple computers run faster than Windows computers that are right out of the box. Please go back to grade school and learn to use proper grammar and then go learn about what a computer is, cause you sir don't know your head from your ass. Each OS has it's own pros and cons, but saying Apple sucks, that's plain stupid.

      • Anonymous
        June 16, 2015 at 9:37 am

        Did you just call someone an idiot then say OSX is based on Linux? They both share a *nix/POSIX philosophy (and certified so in OSX) - but in no way is OSX based on Linux. OSX is based on Nextstep, which was then updated to become the more modern OS Darwin, then customised with Apples non-OSS libraries etc to be OSX.

        OSX is based on Unix, not Linux. Its so bizarre when you call someone an idiot and dont know the difference.

      • Kartikey
        January 1, 2016 at 10:27 am

        You are complete mad xD

      • Frank Jackson
        March 7, 2016 at 1:07 am

        Well actually OSX is not based on Linux. It's based on BSD. There's definitely some similarities there but to say it's based on Linux is flat out wrong.

  10. gurqn
    February 6, 2015 at 8:47 am

    You are doing benchmark even while have no idea about OSX memory management. Unbelivelable..

  11. Eric
    February 4, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    IMO the flatness and monotone colors in Yosemite is not an improvement. I preferred the look of Mavericks, and Tiger even more.

  12. denim
    January 9, 2015 at 4:21 am

    In short, I must say, that operating system is good which delivers more productivity with good speed. Although working with Mac system is awesome but as compared to other platforms, Linux is good. Because I faced much issues after upgrading Mac system to OS X Yosemite version.

  13. The1Gr8Scott
    December 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    Much like one of the other commenters, this was far to simple and minimal to really capture the essence of the differences in the two OSs. Thats said, not too bad for a "Linux user's view". For the record I have been using OS X for 13 years and running some form of Ubuntu for about 5 and half years. I can truly say I love both, however my daily driver remains OS X for the stability and predictability. I came so close to making the switch with my most recent purchase of a new MacBook Pro this Summer over to Linux with a purchase from System 76. Recently resuming my graduate studies I felt like I needed to stick with the platform I have come to trust most. I have found it to be true that (for the most part) Macs "just work". I would love to get to the point where Linux is my daily driver because there are somethings Apple is doing that I just don't like very much, mainly hardware that can't be updated. All in all I love the progress Linux is making on the desktop and look forward to what's to come.

  14. Anonymous
    December 26, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    i think you miss the main reason of using an OS? It's all about productivity. If you can run Linux in a virtual machine on top of OS X, you can actually use both OS at the same time in your workflow. You don't have to care which one is more efficient because the most important thing is to get things done. Both system which is based on UNIX are quiet complementary in terms of productivity.

    • Dee
      January 14, 2015 at 11:56 am

      Would that be the optimum scenario, do you think? I'm contemplating doing this, or would the inverse hold true as well - OSX in a virtual machine on a Linux machine..?

  15. Anonymous
    December 26, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Memory test is idiotic

  16. John S
    December 26, 2014 at 1:02 am

    3.6 GB RAM? Every PC I've owned in the past 34 years COMBINED do not total 4 GB RAM. For the record, my custom Ubuntu install boots on 120 MB RAM including the GUI.

    • julian
      January 2, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      I installed Puppy Linux (ordinary release complete with GUI, in its own partition with dual boot) on a RAM 128 MB machine (original OS: Windows 98). Everything worked fine: usbs (did not work with Win 98), LibreOffice, Octave 3.8.2 with GUI, C/C++ etc. Google chrome and Firefox cannot load within 5 mins. Seamonkey browser latest version loads in ~90 secs. Downloads fantastically. Most pages display correctly. Pages making heavy use of javascript cannot load (youtube, google drive etc; dropbox works).

  17. Anas Ismail Khan
    December 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    What do you even mean by the thing about Linux not running well on Apple Hardware? i mean, it's not like a person buys individual components manufactured by Apple, builds a computer and installs Linux on it?
    If it doesnt work on their hardware, by all means thats okay with everyone. who cares? plus it's not the distro's fault. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple for trying to be so exclusive. This whole thing about there Hardware and Software being made for only one another. they may present this in a positive way, but from another perspective, it's a major drawback.

  18. Anonymous
    December 23, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Unused memory is wasted plain and simple.
    so any tests where you compare the amount of memory used then give an award to the lower one is wrong and idiotic.

    • akjsdasdk
      February 6, 2016 at 5:28 pm

      Very stupid argument. The idea is, the more the OS consumes RAM, there's less available to run your programs.

      • Frodo
        September 29, 2016 at 2:21 pm

        Wrong, lots of the RAM consumed can be freed if needed as it's used for caching to make the system perform better when no program is requesting it.

  19. Hans van den Bogert
    December 23, 2014 at 9:11 am

    Your memory assessment is off, the numbers compared represent different things. The memory used on OSX includes cache. It's more comparable to running top and looking at memory used - on linux. Though even then it's comparing apples to oranges. A more honest comparison would be to load the same set of programs and looking how responsive the machine stays. That in my opinion represents more how efficient a system is. Looking at the memory load has little meaning as metric.

    Because let's for example take a hypothetical machine which would minimise memory usage and keeps the free memory chunk as large as possible, would that really be efficient? That machine would need to reload a lot of data if you re-open an app.

    ergo, cache is king.

  20. Stephan Huebner
    December 23, 2014 at 8:47 am

    I don't think that this is a very accurate comparison. It leaves out a lot of details, like all the little functions that Apple has built into OS X over the years that make life easier for users. I've been using OS X for many years and in my opinion, OS X is the far superior system when it comes to intuitive design, looks, consistency and helping the user to get things done in simple ways. At the same time there are lots and lots of useful shortcuts and tricks hidden in the GUI for the more advanced users, many of which are simply not available on linux. Also, despite having a relatively powerful CPU and graphics card and more RAM than I ever had in any Mac, Linux often feels sluggish to me, something I had never experienced on the MACs running OS X.

    • dragonmouth
      December 23, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      "all the little functions that Apple has built into OS X over the years that make life easier for users." "there are lots and lots of useful shortcuts and tricks hidden in the GUI for the more advanced users, many of which are simply not available on linux."
      I could generalize about Linux in the same way. Could you provide some specific examples?

      "despite having a relatively powerful CPU and graphics card and more RAM than I ever had in any Mac, Linux often feels sluggish to me, something I had never experienced on the MACs running OS X."
      Again you provide no details, just vague general statements.
      OS/X is pre-loaded and optimised for the particular hardware set by Apple. You were the one that installed Linux and I doubt you did any optimizing. You probably used a pre-configured distro such as Ubuntu or Mint which do not allow for a lot of optimizing. Had you used a build-it-yourself distro such as Gentoo, Arch or LinuxFromScratch, which get compiled on your specific hardware, your user experience would have been much better.

    • Vijay Kanta
      December 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm

      Yes, it's because Apple's software is run on Apple's hardware. :-)

  21. A. Lawrence
    December 23, 2014 at 7:35 am

    Linux is more flexible in my view then OS X and Windows. KDE and Unity can be ram and CPU use heavy. Modern Linux distos like Lubuntu will run on old hardware. Yosemite from my experience is lighter on ram then Mavericks. In fact with just two Firefox browser windows open I was using SWAP. That never happened with early versions of OS X.

    This is on a 2007 Macbook Pro with 4gb ram.

  22. Eddie G.
    December 23, 2014 at 5:33 am

    As far as I see it, unless you need a specific app or need a specific function, then Linux does everything that Windows and MAC OS'es do, but with more customization, and with less financial output from the user! I don't suport or like Macs, but not because of being a Linux fanboy...(which in a kind of way....I AM! LoL!) but because whe you look at the iPhone 3....4...5...and now 6?....they almost all look the same, the only thing that changes is the version number, but hardware wise, the MacBook Air's, iPhones, and iPads all still pretty much look the same! So basically you're paying for an updated version of a phone that is a little lighter, has a lot more apps, and will work with your "legacy" Apple products......I'm just sayin' is all....

  23. Brian Pontarelli
    December 23, 2014 at 3:49 am

    This is a fairly thin comparison. There are so many other things to include. Time spent battling with drivers. Trying to print on random printers. Accelerated graphics. Boot speed. Security. Simplicity. File systems. SSD support. Display support. Projectors. Availability of applications. File format support. Encryption. Developer tools. Installation consistency. Uninstallation consistency.

    I think a true comparison would require a lot more investigation and thought.

  24. Fred
    December 23, 2014 at 2:58 am

    I did a training course about Yosemite and what I noticed whas the instability of it. never did see that whit stable Ubuntu versions. Never expected OS/X was so instable . The difference was minimal. Apple writes a dumbed-down tool for every configuration, that´ s cool.

  25. Hugo Morales
    December 23, 2014 at 12:51 am

    I am a os x user in a macbook pro, but i think that linux has come a great way to be a perfectly os for any hardware, it's improvements over desktop are great.

  26. F DJ
    December 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm

    yeah dude....linux must improve it's hardware support to be able using peak of hardware capability and offcourse, when time's permit....the power managament will increase too. In my humble opinion....hardware support is the very key to improving power management on Linux.
    so far, i agreed with you bro :D

  27. Zack McCauley
    December 22, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    Your memory results are very skewed. You said "I checked both my Mac OS X and Linux partitions’ RAM usage immediately after boot." You have Third Party software running on the OS X side. Dropbox, BetterSnapTool (Love this tool btw), Wunderlist, etc. ALL adding a large chunk to Memory Usage on OS X. You would have been better doing a completely fresh install of OS X after installing updates to get a fair result.
    That said, OS X still uses more memory at boot rather then Linux but it is not that much. So please, do a proper benchmark and post those results.

    • Denis
      March 1, 2015 at 2:30 am

      So if we want to compare OS X to Linux, we have to reinstall it first.

    • Not Your Bidness
      March 7, 2015 at 8:32 pm

      Zack, I don't use 3rd party system monitoring tools and I still get 2.4GB at an idle on Mac OS X AND letting it sit idle the RAM usage goes up, sometimes doubling to 5GB just sitting still doing nothing.

      Even the most memory hoggish DE (KDE) uses 800-900MB RAM at an idle USING 3RD PARTY MONITORING TOOLS!!

      This article's finding on memory isn't far enough off to make a hill of beans difference. Mac OS X loses.

    • Buchko
      March 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

      Actually memory consumption isn't a problem at all. Prices of memory are low these days and every free RAM is wasted RAM. I prefer my system to manage RAM in smart way and use it as much as it could to speed up everything than having there RAM just sitting and wasting power.