UNIX intentionally deviated from monolithic systems that had many useful features because they couldn&#x27;t run on their hardware. Then, they kept that even when hardware got better with some added back in band-aid on ways and some others cleanly. Windows NT&#x27;s design came from experience and strategies of OpenVMS&#x27;s designer. No wonder that a cleaner, monolithic design came out of it. Took them a while to get the reliability near their ancestor, though. Haha.<p>Meanwhile, QNX and Minix 3 took a more UNIX philosophy approach than UNIX by decomposing the whole thing into communicating components. QNX did it fast and ultra-reliable where Minix 3 is at least reliable. Easier to update due to architecture, even live updates. They each did this with little manpower and resources compared to what went into UNIX&#x27;s.<p>My direct comparison for UNIX is with them. It shows UNIX architecture is fundamentally flawed in terms of flexibility, reliability, security, determinism, and ease of maintenance. I&#x27;d compare Windows kernel with other monoliths on servers and desktops. Usability and stability are better than most that are still around with other attributes hit and miss (or comparable). UNIX desktops have gotten much better than before but still too many WTF moments. And more dependency hell than I used to deal with on Windows. (sighs)