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.
Another good BS test for spinrite is to run it against a non-ATA drive that is still BIOS accessible. A booted USB flash drive is the best, but something like a modern SCSI/SAS controller works as well. It's clearly impossible for spinrite to access such a device directly, yet it still reports all sorts of things it simply could not see. No errors or blank data, it again makes shit up and displays it.
I have 32 GB in my system and the difference between an SSD and the best mechanical drive is still night and day.
The 386 SX and DX have different bus widths. The SX was 16 bit and was usually soldered on. The DX was 32 bit and usually had a socket, but not a ZIF one. They never shared sockets.
Likewise the Pentium 66 used socket 4 and not socket 5 or 7 that the 150 would have used. Not compatible at all.
This is the whole reason why Windows 7 has problems scheduling on the FX CPUs. AMD LIES to the OS and claims the SMT units are full cores. This causes performance problems when Windows schedules as if it was true. If AMD had been truthful then the FX CPUs would perform to their fullest potential on any OS, and Linux and Win 8 would not have had to be modified to work around the issue.
Call it hyper-threading, SMT or whatever, the second integer unit on FX CPUs are not full cores. AMD did SMT better than Intel, but it's still not a full core.
Just because AMD calls them cores does not make it true.