Sorry, but that is completely dependent upon specific turbos. Mr MacInnes doesn't consider the bearing drag of two turbos versus one and countless other real world things. Two turbos that flow the same as one larger one is difficult to find. In the real world, you get something close. Some cars are a better fit for a single turbo and others for twins. This is from a PEAK HP point. In my experience, rotational inertia is less of a deciding factor as bearing design and finding turbos that fit the performance envelope of the engine.
A sequential turbo setup is nifty because the engine can run on one turbo to spool it at lower rpm and has some low down grunt. If you want the big power, you rev it up higher and it will open up both turbos. When you are rev'ing up to hit both turbos, you will have two spools; one as soon as you roll on the throttle (at low rpm) and another when the ECU opens up the second turbo. After that first gear, you just keep the revs up above that set point for the second turbo as governed by the ECU. Just as 1 fast z has said, some ppl prefer the sequential setup and some don't want the double spool, etc. Like most things, it's a preference, I suppose.
Sequential turbos are usually ditched in favor of a simpler system. Note that not all twin turbo systems are sequential. Some just have two turbos (I usually refer to them as parallel). Likewise, not all sequential systems use two turbos of the same size.
If you want to look at the Supra system, compare the HKS twin setup. It doesn't really spool any faster. It is more expensive (heavier) and cooler (to some, I suppose; I know someone who bought them for that reason).
Again, in real world, you have a limited set of turbo choices and sometimes twins are a better fit. IMHO, it is very rare that twins are better on an inline engine.