As 0123456 said, a Celeron 847 is about twice the speed of a 3.8GHz P4. The Celeron actually has MORE cache than the P4 in total (548K more to be exact). Plus it likely would have faster memory and a much faster interface to the rest of the system components.
The lowest end AMD E2s might get bested by the P4, but the higher clocked ones would still be a big improvement.
The bigger problem with most cheap laptops is the slow HD and lack of RAM which would cripple any CPU. Give a Celeron 847 an SSD and 4GB+ and it would be fine for most non CPU intensive or gaming tasks. Much better than the P4 for sure.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The Core i7's are consumer-grade processors and are slower than the Xeon's the Mac Pros use
This is completely incorrect. The current Mac Pros use Nehalem based Xeons which are two generations back from the current Ivy Bridge i7s. Xeons may have differences in core count, cache and/or ECC support but their execution units are the same as their desktop equivalents. The base Mac Pro CPU is equivalent to an i7-960 with ECC support. The current Ivy Bridge i7s are a fair bit faster.
All other operation systems running on similar hardware but having strict security and privileges proof you wrong. Even Linux existed at that time already and ran happily on that hardware.
No, he is completely correct. Linux of the time did not "run happily" on that hardware with the same level of GUI complexity as Win9x. Either Linux had no GUI at all, or a simple window manager like TWM or FVWM.
This is also doubly wrong in claiming that all other operating systems at the time had proper security. The biggest competitors to MS at the time were even simpler and less secure OSes. For GUIs there was MacOS which didn't have protected memory and could barely multitask, along with having no security model. On the server side the biggest at the time would have been Novell, which did have a security model, but still had no protected memory and much simpler multitasking than even Win9x.
Some lower end chipsets from the Core 2 era don't support more than 4GB of physical address space, even with 64 bit OSes.
It's also extremely slow. It will often backup at only 20-40 mbit/sec locally on my gig lan. I know it encrypts files, but my i7 can perform the same encryption in other programs at least an order of magnitude faster. Yes, I have allowed it to use more CPU power.
While there isn't anything that works as well, there are tonnes of programs that do similar things to CrashPlan with a fraction of the resource usage.