In 1988, Dave Cutler and a group of developers left Digital Equipment Corporation for Microsoft to develop a new operating system (OS) that would scale from the smallest electronic devices to the largest mainframe. The result is what we know today as Windows NT. Given the background of NT's developers and Microsoft's insistence on branding NT as "Windows," a question arises: As IS managers consider NT for business-critical applications, are they betting their companies on Windows, or are they convinced that there is more to the NT story than Windows?

In fact, Mark Russinovich's articles, "Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story...," page 114, and "NT vs. UNIX: Is One Substantially Better?" page 121, point out that, unlike Windows, NT has a heritage not from the consumer PC environment, but from the enterprise mainframe environment. NT's roots have much more to do with Digital's (now Compaq's) VMS and with UNIX than with Windows. And NT is increasingly resembling a full-fledged enterprise OS: It has numerous VMS- and UNIX-like features (and a Windows GUI).

Good-bye Wintel, Hello MicroPaq!
A former Digital executive once told me that, early in NT's evolution, Digital had sued Microsoft for copying portions of VMS. However, neither Digital nor Microsoft wanted this suit to go to trial, so the out-of-court settlement resulted in the Microsoft/Digital alliance. In this settlement, Microsoft paid Digital millions of dollars to train Digital employees, buy Digital hardware, and create a long-term technology exchange between the Microsoft and Digital OS-development teams.

Today, Compaq owns this agreement. In addition, Compaq now owns three enterprise-level OSs: OpenVMS, Digital UNIX, and Tandem Non-Stop. Nobody questions whether these three OSs can run an enterprise. Under the Microsoft/Compaq alliance, or MicroPaq, Microsoft and Compaq have the opportunity to add features from Compaq's OSs into future versions of NT. This MicroPaq alliance could result in the next wave of enterprise computing.

MicroPaq could also bring the end of the Microsoft/Intel alliance, or Wintel. The other day, an Intel representative said, "We hate Microsoft. We're going to do a huge initiative around UNIX." Shocked by this remark, I began to consider what's going on. Compaq is using AMD chips for its consumer systems and Alpha chips for its enterprise-class systems. Could MicroPaq use enough non-Intel silicon to hurt Intel? Yes, and where MicroPaq goes, many will follow. And MicroPaq is headed toward the enterprise.

Rewriting History
Ironically, just as NT is becoming a serious enterprise contender, Microsoft has decided to remove the "NT" from Windows. As I'm writing this editorial, Microsoft has decided to change the name of Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000, and give it the tag line, "Built on NT Technology." Windows NT Workstation 5.0 will be Windows 2000 Professional, Windows NT Server 5.0 will be Windows 2000 Server, and the Enterprise Edition will be Windows 2000 Advanced Server.

Why? As serious business IS users of NT, we all know that NT is not Windows. We equate Windows with Windows 9x. However, since Microsoft has decided to migrate everyone--both consumer and business users--to NT, it has feared that the "Windows" brand would die with Windows 98. The Windows brand is everything to Microsoft, so the company decided to call NT Windows 2000, thus ensuring the continuation of the Windows brand.

No matter how many times I say "Windows 2000," I still have a hard time associating that name with the enterprise. Perhaps I'll get used to it. Or perhaps Windows 2000 will be like New Coke, and we'll all convince Microsoft to bring back "NT Classic." Write me and let me know what you think.

The Name of the Game
Besides the OS, NT's name change affects the title of this magazine. But no matter what we call it, this publication will continue to help serious NT implementers do their job.

As the NT market heats up and other NT publications come and go, people ask me where Windows NT Magazine is headed. We will continue to emphasize the core enterprise topics that we've always focused on: scalability, availability, security, interoperability, mission-critical applications, performance, and manageability (of systems, networks, and data). These seven IS themes are timeless. They were important 10 years ago and will be important 10 years from now. These topics represent the very heartbeat of this publication and NT's position in the market. These topics describe NT itself--NT classic.

Is NT Windows? No. And let's hope that more of NT gets into Windows than Windows gets into NT. Will NT be called Windows? Yes, and you may be the last generation to know where NT really came from, because now you know the rest of the story.

End of Article


You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

I enjoyed Mark Smith’s Editorial: “Is NT Windows?” and NT News Analysis: “Windows NT 5.0 Is Now Windows 2000” (December 1998). I can’t believe Microsoft renamed NT to Windows 2000 (Win2K)! NT is not Windows. By renaming NT to Win2K, Microsoft is attempting to make people believe that NT is a home OS. Believers will get a nasty surprise when they try to run games, DOS or Win9x communications utilities, and other applications that don’t run on NT. I frequently get questions from my users about their home PCs and the problems they have running various applications. I think I’ll run and hide when Microsoft releases Win2K.<br> --Deborah Lester Jones

Deborah Lester Jones- August 06, 1999

Mark Smith’s Toyota/Lexus comparison in “Windows NT 5.0 Is Now Windows 2000” is exactly the argument I needed to describe my concerns with Microsoft’s new naming scheme. The author hit the nail on the head when he said the new name would cause major confusion in the consumer market. Experienced NT professionals are aware of what makes NT different from and superior to the Windows 98 and Win95 products, and we take pride in telling people that we run NT. But the name change threatens more than personal pride the moment that home computers start shipping with Win2K. For example, what happens when little Timmy locks daddy out of his files and refuses to give him admin access on the family’s new Compaq? I (and many other people) reject the idea that high-end servers running essentially the same technology as my uncle’s Pentium machine that sits in his basement is a good idea. I hope Microsoft has a plan to prevent the confusion and dire consequences that could result from this move. One way to separate the enterprise market from the consumer market would be to release a version of Win2K for the consumer market, with either scaled-back NT features or just the functionality of a Win98 upgrade. Of course, the solution I most prefer is seeing Microsoft hold a press conference to say, “Oh, that whole Win2K thing ... just a joke!”<br> --Scott Wardrop

Scott Wardrop- August 06, 1999

I thought Mark Smith’s December editorial was very heady, and I think Microsoft’s new name for NT stinks, for all the reasons the author mentioned and then some. Windows 2000—–do I get a Ginsu knife with that? I understand Microsoft wanting to drop the NT moniker. After all, the OS was NT in 1993. I also understand that Microsoft wants to capitalize on the Windows brand, but the Windows brand has negative connotations in the IS world. NT was just gaining momentum (especially with version 5.0), and Microsoft has killed that momentum. I would like nothing more than to see Microsoft recant on this Win2K stuff.<br> --Rick Davis

Rick Davis- August 06, 1999

One of the most important things a company needs to consider when naming a product is what pops into the buyers’ head when they hear the name. When I hear Windows 2000, I think of a beefed-up version of Windows 98. Windows 2000 sounds like just another upgrade that will cause more blue screens. The industry associates Microsoft’s NT brand with stability, security, and scalability. (Is it just me, or do you associate any product name followed by 2000 with bright orange On Sale stickers at your local supermarket?) On the flip side, Microsoft could easily brand the name Windows 2000. To the corporate world, what Microsoft says goes. In a year or two, Windows 2000 may have the same impact as the name NT does today.<br> --Matthew Connor

—–Matthew Connor- August 06, 1999

I liked the December 1998 cover stories, editorial, and news piece about the topic “Is NT Windows?” My firm has used VMS and UNIX in the past and now uses Windows NT for its primary engineering and CAD work. But whenever I’m using a command-line window and see a tilde and a numeral instead of a long filename, I wonder, “Is NT DOS?”<br> --Wilbur Bragg

Wilbur Bragg- August 06, 1999

Mark Smith’s December editorial, “Is NT Windows?” surely has gained some response from readers. Around my organization, we now have many similar acronyms: Y2K (Year 2000), G2K (Gateway 2000), O2K (Office 2000), and W2K (Windows 2000). If Microsoft was trying to preserve the Windows name, at our facility the company has failed—–it’s lost both familiar names, Windows and NT. Is Microsoft losing its focus on the product and concentrating more on marketing ploys?<br>--Travis Webster

Travis Webster- August 06, 1999

I personally dislike the usage of the name Windows 2000, on any product of NT. Reasons vary in my opinion with this strange fad they have of naming operating systems after important dates. Windows NT 5.0 on the other hand seems more to communicate stability and a distinguished background. Windows 2000 sounds tacky and like a PR stunt. The sound of it automatically thinks 'next replacement for Windows 98,' even though we know it isn't. Users want stability and so do Systems Administrators. Windows NT 4.0 has 'a lot of' stability, and the name alone guarantees that users feel more safer. How does: 'It's running on Windows 2000 server sound?' or 'it's running 2000 server?' Predictably it is even easier to say 'NT4 server' and hear a 'oh ok', than 'what's that?' to the former.

Enough of my rant. I hate the name, like 'most' of the product, and we'll see what happens when they release it.

Ray Young- September 01, 1999

I think that Windows is the OS based on MS-DOS and Windows NT (which should be called Winnt, to avoid confussion) is a totally different OS.

Anonymous User- April 14, 2005

Article Rating 5 out of 5

 
 

ADS BY GOOGLE