> Microsoft actually did release a version of NT that was a true microkernel, You mean Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5, right? I used those intensively, and it worked r

> Microsoft actually did release a version of NT that was a true microkernel, You mean Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5, right? I used those intensively, and it worked really well. > but they quickly realized that it is not a practical approach.. With Windows NT 4.0 they left the original design and moved everything including the graphics into the kernel. But that was not because the original approach was not practical or did not work. It was because Windows 95. The wanted Win32 to be API compatible with that crap (desktop 'gadgets' and such) and that's why they did it. I remember hating NT 4.0 because it was so much less stable than the original versions.