No, it hasn't. Filenames are still case-insensitive (and in a terrible way, where it seems to remember how they were first typed but that can never be changed), backslashes are still used for path separators instead of escaping characters, and the worst of all is that drive letters are still in use, which is an utterly archaic concept from the days of systems with dual floppy drives. Also, try making a file with a double-quote character in it, or a question mark. I've run into trouble before copying files from a Linux system to a Windows system because of the reserved characters on Windows.
>Mono and Qt don't change the architecture of UNIX and their adoption across UNIX variants isn't a game changer.
Nothing you've mentioned has changed the architecture of Windows. The fundamental architecture of Windows hasn't changed at all since WinNT 4.0 (or maybe 3.5); it just has an ugly new UI slapped on top and some slightly different administration tools.
The Windows (Win32) environment suffers those limitations. It also suffers 20+ years of strong binary compatibility, broad hardware support, and consistent reliability that systems of similar class (e.g. Linux desktops) can't match.
If it makes you feel any better, drive letters are a convenient illusion made possible by the Win32 subsystem; NT has no such concept and mounts file systems into the object hierarchy (NT is fundamentally object oriented - a more modern and flexible design than is provided by UNIX).
The fundamental architecture of Windows, the kernel, hasn't changed in ages because it doesn't need to; it is far more sophisticated than UNIX will ever be and far more sophisticated than you will ever need. The fundamental architecture of Win32 hasn't changed since 32-bits was an exciting concept and it won't change because the market has said loud and clear that they want Windows-level compatibility. See Windows RT and The Year of the Linux Desktop for evidence that users aren't clamoring to ditch Win32 in favor of something more pure.
Another case in point: it allowed MS to write a layer on top of the NT kernel to run unmodified Linux binaries. (Windows subsystem for Linux).
An API translation layer doesn't prove that a kernel is "more sophisticated" than another; that's just fanboyism.
Is that a claim you can substantiate? I admit I stopped paying attention around the time that scale-up of expensive servers with high minimum specs + expensive software licenses was overtaken by scale-out approaches +
open source, but NT never struck me as being particularly stable in the face of badly written software and drivers. Has it improved a lot in this dimension over the past 15 years?
Nowadays on Windows 10 it means UWP, Win32 and Linux syscalls.
In theory someone could call the ntdll.dll and create a new personality but those APIs are undocumented and only possibly made available to Microsoft partners.
For us, Windows pathanmes are just fine.
As for Windows architecture, maybe you should spend some hours reading Windows Internals book series, BUILD and Channel 9 sessions about MinWin, Drawbridge, Picoprocesses, UWP, User Space Drivers, Secure Kernel,....
I'd love to read the source code myself to see how it works instead
(Three versions of NT have been leaked; NT 4.0, Windows 2000, an the Windows Research Kit (which is Win2k3) -- they are all trivial to find online (first page of Google results).)
Not exactly "you can get it if you want it", but not "you can't even get it over our dead body", either.