Computer buffs: Microsoft NT Workstation and Server Identical

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a recent article of Infoworld magazine, it was reported that Microsoft 
Windows NT Workstation and NT Server are identical. Below is the full 
article, which was taken from 
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/petrel/petrel.htm.



InfoWorld
September 16, 1996 

            When it comes to judging Microsoft
            products, the devil is in the details
                By Nicholas Petreley

In the Bible, in John 8:44, it says of the devil: "When he 
lies, he speaks his native language." Yes, this column is about Microsoft 
Corp. But don't worry. I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the 
devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it 
wouldn't need an interpreter.

My most recent example surfaced when Microsoft delivered final Windows NT 
4.0 code to InfoWorld. In that meeting, I probed Microsoft about the 
differences between Windows NT Server and Workstation to investigate the 
Web server issues raised by Netscape Communications Corp., O'Reilly & 
Associates Inc., and others. 

I asked specific questions and got specific answers: There is no way to 
change any setting to make the Workstation kernel behave like the Server. 
The reason, said the Microsoft representative, is that the source code for 
the kernel has embedded statements -- #ifdef statements. These cause the 
compiler to produce different executables depending on whether the target 
is a server or a workstation. As a result, the two kernels are hard-coded 
to use different caching algorithms and multitasking priorities, among 
other things.

That's what the fellow said, in front of a room packed with InfoWorld 
editors and analysts. And it simply isn't true. Microsoft will undoubtedly
argue that the difference between what it claimed in the meeting and what 
is true is simply a matter of semantics. It's not. Ask any programmer.

It's also extraordinarily easy to disprove. Windows NT's own file-compare 
program will show that Workstation and Server kernels are identical, bit 
for bit.

O'Reilly & Associates' Andrew Schulman points out that the reason the two 
kernels behave differently is due to two settings in the Windows NT 
registry (see http://software.ora.com/news/ms_internet_frame.html). The 
system makes attempts to prevent you from changing these settings, but 
it's pretty easy to get past the guards. If you do, you'll break the law, 
and Windows NT Workstation will perform just like Windows NT Server.



            Self-destructive behavior


I find this terribly depressing, but not because it may have implications 
about what you are paying for and what you get. It bothers me because 
Microsoft is still engaging in damaging propaganda. And, although I'm not 
sure Microsoft understands this, the target is itself.

Lies invite harsh criticism, reinforce Microsoft's reputation (deserved 
or not) as an evil empire, and give Microsoft's enemies ammunition. They 
also undermine every press release and public statement. Each time 
Microsoft addresses a controversial product feature, a slew of analysts 
and hackers will try to disprove its claims because they know that, more 
often than not, they'll score.

Worst of all, Microsoft's intent for giving misinformation about 
controversial issues often goes well beyond the limits of reason. To 
paraphrase an ex-Microsoft employee, Microsoft would have been better off 
proclaiming from the rooftops that there is DOS in Windows 95 rather than 
trying to sustain the deception that there isn't.

The predisposition to lie also draws suspicion in every questionable 
situation. For example, a few weeks ago, a Digital Equipment Corp. 
representative demonstrated limited Plug and Play and power-management 
services for Digital notebooks. According to this fellow, Microsoft, 
along with Digital and two other vendors, created a set of undocumented 
hooks to the NT kernel to give OEMs the opportunity to fill these gaps in 
the OS.

I wondered how many other vendors had access to these hooks, so I posed 
exactly that question to Microsoft and a few other OEMs. The OEMs I spoke 
with were either unaware of these undocumented services, or they said the 
issue was too sensitive to talk about on the record. After stonewalling 
for nearly two weeks, Microsoft denied that any such hooks exist. 
(Microsoft declined to speak to InfoWorld news reporter Carolyn A. April 
as well. See "NT laptop vendors to add Plug and Play," Sept. 2, page 6.)

Did Microsoft innocently provide hooks to only a few vendors and 
afterward realize how stupid it was to limit the selection? Were these 
intentional favors to a few OEMs? Are there really any hooks at all?

I honestly don't know. But I probably wouldn't even be asking these 
questions had it not been for an established pattern of deception. After 
all, how do you give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt when you know 
that if you throw it into a room with truth, you'd risk a 
matter/anti-matter explosion?

Worst of all, the tendency to deceive erodes the credibility of almost 
everything you read about Microsoft. How many of you disregard Microsoft 
articles for this very reason?

Of course, Microsoft is not the only guilty party. But when you consider 
that most of the industry runs on Microsoft products, the potential 
damage these deceptions can cause threatens to be far-reaching.

For now, I'll leave it to others to ponder how damaging this particular 
lie is to Microsoft, as well as whether or not Microsoft's 
differentiation between its NT Server and Workstation constitutes  
anti-competitive behavior.

What bothers me more is that it's a silly and unnecessary lie -- like one 
spoken from a company for whom lies are a native language.