3 ms·

Nobody had to "work this out" because it was widely known and acknowledged by MS since the first AS beta release (1993). The original idea was to sell a product

Nobody had to "work this out" because it was widely known and acknowledged by MS since the first AS beta release (1993). The original idea was to sell a product to complete with Novell Netware (at the time the dominant thing you ran on the office file server). If MS made it easy to use the desktop NT as a file server, then they'd be "leaving money on the table" vs what Novell charged for Netware (per-client licensing that meant $thousands for a large server). So they invented a license for clients (CAL) and a product that bundled some number of licenses in the SKU, and AS was born, sold for iirc about $500. Much cheaper than Netware, which subsequently died. Then, to make it harder for customers to simply use the cheaper desktop NT in place of AS, a limit on the number of connected clients was enforced (5?). There were also some kernel tuning parameters that were different between workstation and server. Subsequently, through the 2000, 2003, ... generations, more applications were bundled into the server product (e.g. ActiveDirectory) that were obviously not present in the desktop version.

tialaramex 3y ago
When you say "acknowledged by Microsoft" I notice you don't provide a link or even a quote. There's a big difference between what's obvious to programmers and what you can get fanboys to accept is true about a product they've somehow connected to their self-worth. In my experience the Registry Key made all the difference and of course Microsoft were not publishing "Use this registry key to effectively pirate Windows Server" docs - unless you're claiming they did? Windows 2000 Server is like older NT versions, it's exactly the same actual code as the far cheaper Windows 2000 Professional, whereas Windows Server 2003 was a different branch from the similar XP on the desktop, there was no "Windows Professional 2003" or whatever. The bundling makes it a bit easier for customers to stomach that you're blatantly selling them the exact same product with a different badge for more money, but it's not enough. It wasn't just about Client licenses either. Some Windows "editions" (ie the exact same code with a registry change) had different hardware support. Got 4 CPUs? Can't use them in "professional" edition, you need Server. Got a huge beat with 32 CPUs? Ordinary Server won't work, get yourself Datacenter Server. Same for RAM.

tialaramex 3y ago

When you say "acknowledged by Microsoft" I notice you don't provide a link or even a quote. There's a big difference between what's obvious to programmers and what you can get fanboys to accept is true about a product they've somehow connected to their self-worth. In my experience the Registry Key made all the difference and of course Microsoft were not publishing "Use this registry key to effectively pirate Windows Server" docs - unless you're claiming they did? Windows 2000 Server is like older NT versions, it's exactly the same actual code as the far cheaper Windows 2000 Professional, whereas Windows Server 2003 was a different branch from the similar XP on the desktop, there was no "Windows Professional 2003" or whatever. The bundling makes it a bit easier for customers to stomach that you're blatantly selling them the exact same product with a different badge for more money, but it's not enough. It wasn't just about Client licenses either. Some Windows "editions" (ie the exact same code with a registry change) had different hardware support. Got 4 CPUs? Can't use them in "professional" edition, you need Server. Got a huge beat with 32 CPUs? Ordinary Server won't work, get yourself Datacenter Server. Same for RAM.