Sadly Computerworld 'Intel backs off 80386 claims but denies chip recast needed (1986)' article was devoid of technical details :( Do you have more detailed in

Sadly Computerworld 'Intel backs off 80386 claims but denies chip recast needed (1986)' article was devoid of technical details :( Do you have more detailed information about what were the main issues with multiple OSes in Protected Mode? Was it implementation bug or fundamental architectural problems? Do you know by any chance why did Intel miss POPF trap in Protected Mode? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160411-00/?p=93281 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20160411-00/?p=93... https://docs.oracle.com/en/virtualization/virtualbox/6.0/admin/swvirt-details.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/virtualization/virtualbox/6.0/adm... https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/popf:popfd:popfq https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/popf:popfd:popfq Pentium Virtual Mode Extension (VME) and its Protected Mode Virtual Interrupts (PVI) solve performance burden of trapping, but despite being named _Protected Mode_ Virtual Interrupts this works only in V86 mode leaving Protected with this bug: "The protected-mode virtual-interrupt feature — enabled by setting CR4.PVI — affects the CLI and STI instructions in the same manner as the virtual-8086 mode extensions. POPF, however, is not affected by CR4.PVI" They even planned to patent PVI this in ~1992 https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2259794A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2259794A/en and clearly knew about popf pitfalls back then. Could this be what people in Computerworld article were complaining about? I dont understand how Intel not fixed it at all to this day. Btw I find it funny and weird that Intel was lawyering around all the way in 1998 trying to suppress any knowledge of Virtual Mode Extension! Dr. Dobb's 'VME: Coming Out of the Cold' https://web.archive.org/web/20001217233100/http://www.rcollins.org/ddj/May98/May98.html https://web.archive.org/web/20001217233100/http://www.rcolli...