The problem is that by your definition, every processor manufactured in the last 30 years should actually be called a "microcontroller" Microprocessors going b

The problem is that by your definition, every processor manufactured in the last 30 years should actually be called a "microcontroller" Microprocessors going back to the Intel 486 have more on-chip RAM than many microcontrollers sold today have. CPUs have built-in firmware ROM for loading boot code. Also, CPUs haven't had a system bus with address/data pins for like 30 years — somewhat ironically, the only chips that have that are microcontrollers. Northbridges haven't existed for 15 years, and southbridges are basically just PCIe-to-USB/SATA/Ethernet/I2C adapters. And many mobile CPUs that Intel and AMD make have on-chip I2C, SPI, UART, GPIO peripherals. In my article, I'm trying to differentiate between processors that can run a modern multiuser operating system like Linux and microcontrollers that runs bare-metal code, since that's a question I get asked a ton. After carefully considering all the options, the MMU seemed like the most obvious place to draw the line. Every CPU in the last 40 years (since the Intel 286) has had an MMU, while no microcontroller ever made has had one. I'm not sure why that seems so unreasonable to you.