Nobody asked you, Erik, but, of course, you had to spout on anyway.

Basically, when I previously did ask you, you said that you'd gotten phone calls that told you that your circuit had to be power-cycled twice in order to get it to start. Then, when asked how the problem was addressed, your response amounted to, "well, my original circuit didn't work right, so I designed another one and it seemed to work because the phone calls stopped coming." Your only observations were those phone calls, and your solution was to slap together a different circuit. You concluded that the new circuit works because the customer stopped complaining. You apparently didn't observe the problem yourself, and you didn't attempt to make any relevant physical observations to support the notion that the problem, which you hadn't personally observed, was alleviated.

Now you come along saying that the Intel, AMD, Philips, and Maxim/Dallas MCU's are badly designed? Further, I've seen you offer no concrete support for the notion that one or another MCU's RESET is or is not clocked. Lynn Reed offered the notion that all of them were clocked, which is probably true of the originals, anyway.

BTW, that RESET failure that I observed was in a circuit that uses a supervisor, and RESET was true during the accesses to external memory. That was not a rigorous examination, though it's clear you're not in the habit of pursuing problems rigorously. It was observed with oscilloscope and logic analyzer, though, and not just by phone.

RE