"Terminal Server" inside of Windows 10 install.wim??

[Zacchi4k]

So, I was using imagex.exe from the Windows Automated Installation Kit, which is used to install Windows to a .vhd file, and I told it to give me some info I needed about the image, when something caught my eye:




Immediately I thought, "Terminal server"? Like in Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition? What is that doing inside the installation image of an OS released over 20 years after that?

[whistler2250]

You see, Terminal Server was initially released as a separate product, then was an optional component with Windows 2000, and then was included with the Professional Edition of Windows XP (but not the home edition). The reason the "terminal server" mark was left in was for backwards compatibility with older applications that made use of the Microsoft Remote Desktop protocol that wouldn't run if a terminal server license wasn't detected. Pretty much useless today, but again, Microsoft has a long history of leaving in backwards compatibility with things that few to no one uses today (SMB/CIFS 1.0, NTVDM, reserved filenames, 8.3 filenames, etc...).

[Hyoenmadan86]

Pretty much useless today, but again, Microsoft has a long history of leaving in backwards compatibility with things that few to no one uses today (SMB/CIFS 1.0, NTVDM, reserved filenames, 8.3 filenames, etc...).

That's your own personal guessing. Just because you don't use it means it is useless. If MS still provides these components is because their big enterprise clients still require them, and for sure you don't belong to that group, and they don't care about you at all.

[whistler2250]

I added in few for a reason, which is because there are some extremely rare use case scenarios for those things I mentioned. As for Terminal Server Compatibility in client versions of Windows, I don't see why it's there, as Terminal Server compatibility is usually something that embedded devices and old servers might use.

[Hyoenmadan86]

I added in few for a reason, which is because there are some extremely rare use case scenarios for those things I mentioned.

Again, these "extremely rare user cases" are more common than what you are guessing. I just had to enable SMB1 for a client in selected stations, because his printer farm (big Canon print center machines) can only speak SMB1 for the scanning service part. And again, just because you and your near circle friends don't use it, doesn't mean is the case for the world. If MS includes it, is because is still being used, and is still beneficial for them including it.

As for Terminal Server Compatibility in client versions of Windows, I don't see why it's there, as Terminal Server compatibility is usually something that embedded devices and old servers might use.

Would be because Terminal server technology is the basis for some of the niceties in modern windows versions, like UAC, isolated services or Fast User Switching?
Also, they rebranded Termserv to RDP, but once is set up, in MS internal technology and module names never change... Just as Filesharing services is still internally known as LanManager for example, RDP internally is still Terminal Services.

[whistler2250]

I added in few for a reason, which is because there are some extremely rare use case scenarios for those things I mentioned.

Again, these "extremely rare user cases" are more common than what you are guessing. I just had to enable SMB1 for a client in selected stations, because his printer farm (big Canon print center machines) can only speak SMB1 for the scanning service part. And again, just because you and your near circle friends don't use it, doesn't mean is the case for the world. If MS includes it, is because is still being used, and is still beneficial for them including it.

As for Terminal Server Compatibility in client versions of Windows, I don't see why it's there, as Terminal Server compatibility is usually something that embedded devices and old servers might use.

Would be because Terminal server technology is the basis for some of the niceties in modern windows versions, like UAC, isolated services or Fast User Switching?
Also, they rebranded Termserv to RDP, but once is set up, in MS internal technology and module names never change... Just as Filesharing services is still internally known as LanManager for example, RDP internally is still Terminal Services.

Yes, I know that, and SMBv1 is a security vulnerability, as recently demonstrated by the Wannacry ransomware. Also, only enterprises with large printer/server farms don't have the resources or the time to upgrade their stuff to SMBv3 or later. SMBv1/CIFS was a protocol invented 30 years ago, so using it is like still using an Atari ST as your main computer.

[yourepicfailure]

Well the one thing that stood out to me was Canon. Sure Canon is nice and all, but Epson...
I don't like Canon.

whistler2250, thank you for stating the obvious, as well as your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind most opinions don't count out to be fact. Your anology is a little off, because if that is the case then using an old 60's muscle car would be like driving a trash can equivalent to a Foden steam tractor. Things serve their purpose, and this anology is flawed as well.
In reality, that Foden has an ability that can't be fulfilled by the muscle car, and that muscle car has abilities my 2010 V&W can't fulfill. Smell the roses. This is one argument in the old vs new.

Whistler2250, how about you berate my Cisco equipment as well. I still use a dell d600 with nt4 for RS232 serial to manage many of my switches and routers. That standard is technically 50 years old. AFAIK Cisco still makes equipment with serial, and some of my colleagues use usb dongles to get in.

As stated by others before me, sure there is newer. But often times newer is not needed nor helpful.
E.G. The graphics on my 10 year old hp laptop are horrid compared to the cheapest of laptops as Saturn(electronics store). I won't upgrade because they lack things this laptop does(2 mpcie ports, dvd drive, vga...)

Now relating this to the topic, most enterprises also have this view. Microsoft sees this and makes exemptions for their enterprise customers with money up the wazoo. For us flock, Microsoft and friends like to push all the newest garbage on us, even if it doesn't help us but them. And, as said before, older programs enterprises use are accustomed to these older standards Microsoft has to keep, or customers may hold out or leave. As evidenced even down to naming conventions.

----

If that print farm is offline from other computers and networks, then it doesn't matter. So long as proper security procedures and AV are used, then those machines are probably more secure than yours whistler.

[whistler2250]

Whistler2250, how about you berate my Cisco equipment as well. I still use a dell d600 with nt4 for RS232 serial to manage many of my switches and routers. That standard is technically 50 years old. AFAIK Cisco still makes equipment with serial, and some of my colleagues use usb dongles to get in.

You're confusing hardware standards with software protocols. How about this:
I use headphones. The AUX jack is a 100 year-old protocol. So what? I wasn't talking about hardware, I was talking about software.

[yourepicfailure]

And? The context is exactly the same. You say there are old software standards parties should have left. Just like how there are old hardware standards parties could have left but still stand by.

[nathaniel87]

It seems like some of you are under the impression that "terminal server" is an antique, obsolete service that is only sticking around for legacy purposes and compatibility. This is not accurate at all. As many of you probably know, terminal services has been continually updated and is available in nearly all modern Windows installations, under the name "Remote Desktop", or RDP (as Hyoenmadan86 has pointed out). The RDP executable file itself, mstsc.exe, however has not changed names over the years -- "MSTSC" = "MicroSoft Terminal Services Client".

That said, at my company, every employee here uses RDP every day to access several centralized workstations and servers that house shared software and computing resources. In addition, I personally use RDP frequently to remote into my systems at home.

RDP (a.k.a. "Terminal Server") is very much alive and well, and I don't think it is going away anytime soon.

[whistler2250]

It seems like some of you are under the impression that "terminal server" is an antique, obsolete service that is only sticking around for legacy purposes and compatibility. This is not accurate at all. As many of you probably know, terminal services has been continually updated and is available in nearly all modern Windows installations, under the name "Remote Desktop", or RDP (as Hyoenmadan86 has pointed out). The RDP executable file itself, mstsc.exe, however has not changed names over the years -- "MSTSC" = "MicroSoft Terminal Services Client".

That said, at my company, every employee here uses RDP every day to access several centralized workstations and servers that house shared software and computing resources. In addition, I personally use RDP frequently to remote into my systems at home.

RDP (a.k.a. "Terminal Server") is very much alive and well, and I don't think it is going away anytime soon.

I was talking about the "terminal server" licensing for certain applications, and not RDP.

[ExplicitNuM5]

I was talking about the "terminal server" licensing for certain applications, and not RDP.

Were you? As far as I can tell, the word "licensing" has only been used 1 time in this entire thread.

If this was Tom's Hardware you would already have been flagged for off-topic bickering.

[soulman]

whistler2250 is quite correct for the most part. Microsoft has been aggressively pushing to a new solution known as remote desktop services (since 2012ish possibly?
not sure) which is pretty much scalable to a full VDI solution, unlike yesteryear's Terminal Services deployments which were mostly session based. It can tie into the containerisation feature very nicely now.

It's very much a rebrand of Terminal Services, with a very similar licencing approach (but with nicer terms and conditions now that favours service providers a little more).

The reason it's in the WIM is most likely for licencing compatibility with previous Terminal Services deployments, but I'm not entirely sure myself. I'm not equipped to really say what that particular element provides or how it does. Perhaps somebody could expand specifically on what/how it interfaces with an old deployment? Bit too lazy to try myself in the lab

Well the one thing that stood out to me was Canon. Sure Canon is nice and all, but Epson...
I don't like Canon.

whistler2250, thank you for stating the obvious, as well as your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but keep in mind most opinions don't count out to be fact. Your anology is a little off, because if that is the case then using an old 60's muscle car would be like driving a trash can equivalent to a Foden steam tractor. Things serve their purpose, and this anology is flawed as well.
In reality, that Foden has an ability that can't be fulfilled by the muscle car, and that muscle car has abilities my 2010 V&W can't fulfill. Smell the roses. This is one argument in the old vs new.

Whistler2250, how about you berate my Cisco equipment as well. I still use a dell d600 with nt4 for RS232 serial to manage many of my switches and routers. That standard is technically 50 years old. AFAIK Cisco still makes equipment with serial, and some of my colleagues use usb dongles to get in.

As stated by others before me, sure there is newer. But often times newer is not needed nor helpful.
E.G. The graphics on my 10 year old hp laptop are horrid compared to the cheapest of laptops as Saturn(electronics store). I won't upgrade because they lack things this laptop does(2 mpcie ports, dvd drive, vga...)

Now relating this to the topic, most enterprises also have this view. Microsoft sees this and makes exemptions for their enterprise customers with money up the wazoo. For us flock, Microsoft and friends like to push all the newest garbage on us, even if it doesn't help us but them. And, as said before, older programs enterprises use are accustomed to these older standards Microsoft has to keep, or customers may hold out or leave. As evidenced even down to naming conventions.

----

If that print farm is offline from other computers and networks, then it doesn't matter. So long as proper security procedures and AV are used, then those machines are probably more secure than yours whistler.

Quite a hostile post for a forum where we are to share knowledge, not berate each other on disagreements with logical fallacies that contradict each other. That's not to single you out - I think every other response has been quite on edge from everybody else.

Perhaps instead of comparing specific support analogies, you compare entire solution analogies while you somehow compare pet project muscle cars to agricultural vehicles? It's quicker to cross a country in a Cessna 172 than either muscle car or tractor, and quicker yet for a fighter jet, yet none are suitable for putting a fire out.

RE: cisco and NT4 - seeing as a serial adapter and a null modem cable (nevermind a proper Cisco console cable or even something new and basic like a 1921 with a built in USB adapter...) is there a particular reason you use a D600 with NT4 to manage Cisco kit? It seems more of a personal argument than a logical argument seeing as I can manage a country-spanning backbone entirely from my bathroom these days while sitting on the toilet with X company laptop thanks to management interfaces. Or hell - Windows 10 laptop and USB adapter with putty tends to work if they're old enough or not setup to have a management interface and you're stood beside them. Not a criticism of your management methodology, but just a pointer that I don't have to fly down to London to add a VRF. Or I can take my shiny 2017 laptop into a datacentre and still interface via RS232 with switches
(I would also make any employee trying to bring a production NT4 machine into a network unnecessarily sit their CompTIAs etc again. And replace their company laptop at the same time because the D600 is a bit long in the tooth now).

RE: Microsoft support for EOL products: yes this is always the case, typically for publicly funded organisations in circumstances where there really is no cost effective alternative. Some organisations wrongly employ this technique by not finding out that there's an entire alternative solution nevermind an alternative product. I'm saying here that some people don't realise you can boil a pan of pasta on a cooker these days while they're out trying to find firewood for their camp fire. Some organisations realise this and then suddenly there's a job opening for a new IT director

[Hyoenmadan86]

TL;DR

*sigh* Again... Remote Desktop Services is just a commercial rebrand for Terminal Server Services. Still the same technology and mechanisms, although vastly updated and improved. Internally, at MS, this component is still known as Terminal Server Services. VDI is also based in Terminal Server Services, but it has its own internal identify name. Also isn't the only component still has its old internal name in use... Something similar happens with LanManager (Short:LanMan), which is the old identifier for the File and Printer Sharing Services.

Again, we aren't the ones saying it. Is MS. You just saw it in the WIM. You can find references in the debug symbols provided in their OS developer page. You can buy a Windows Internals book and check for it. Is a FACT coming from MS for the love of...

*sigh* I hope this time it got clear enough.

[soulman]

TL;DR

*sight* Again... Remote Desktop Services is just a commercial rebrand for Terminal Server Services. Still the same technology and mechanisms, although vastly updated and improved. Internally, at MS, this component is still known as Terminal Server Services. VDI is also based in Terminal Server Services, but it has its own internal identify name. Also isn't the only component still has its old internal name in use... Something similar happens with LanManager (Short:LanMan), which is the old identifier for the File and Printer Sharing Services.

Again, we aren't the ones saying it. Is MS. You just saw it in the WIM. You can find references in the debug symbols provided in their OS developer page. You can buy a Windows Internals book and check for it. Is a FACT coming from MS for the love of...

*sight* I hope this time it got clear enough.

Not quite - actually

*sight* Again... Remote Desktop Services is just a commercial rebrand for Terminal Server Services. Still the same technology and mechanisms, although vastly updated and improved. Internally, at MS, this component is still known as Terminal Server Services. VDI is also based in Terminal Server Services, but it has its own internal identify name. Also isn't the only component still has its old internal name in use... Something similar happens with LanManager (Short:LanMan), which is the old identifier for the File and Printer Sharing Services.

VDI is an entire technology, not an MS product. You may also find VDI solutions from other vendors such as Citrix or even VMware now with Horizon. Terms should not be used so loosely.
I did also note it was a rebrand. Thank you for rehashing my point. As someone who deals with managed technology, I'm very familiar with this. The new functionality for containerisation of desktops though is vastly new, and not just a rebrand. The licencing methodology is somewhat different now too (similar enough to be familiar, but dissimilar enough that the two don't quite work together) - which leads me to my next point/assumption...

Again, we aren't the ones saying it. Is MS. You just saw it in the WIM. You can find references in the debug symbols provided in their OS developer page. You can buy a Windows Internals book and check for it. Is a FACT coming from MS for the love of...

Not quite sure what you're trying to clarify here. We know it's from Microsoft? I just don't know what specific purpose with regards to compatibility it serves. Information relevant to this question would be interesting - as from all I can see in reverse is potentially CALs. Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book just to answer one unimportant question I have, so I'm sure a question on a forum for someone who actually has an answer (and not just pretending) will suffice.

*sight* I hope this time it got clear enough.

With all those '*sight*'s, sounds like you need a new pair of glasses
In all seriousness though - sounds like you ought to re-read some posts in this thread and perhaps not assume a few notions. Maybe if this forum is making you sigh then it's time for you to logout?

[Gnome]

Lets keep things civil people or topic will be locked and warnings will be handed out.

[Hyoenmadan86]

VDI is an entire technology, not an MS product. You may also find VDI solutions from other vendors
such as Citrix or even VMware now with Horizon. Terms should not be used so loosely.

I was referring to MS's VDI offer ofc. I though was clear we were discussing about an MS product, but seems certain people can't follow topic and needs extra specific advices... Ok, whatever.

I just don't know what specific purpose with regards to compatibility it serves

No one, except maybe they don't want to edit thousands of internal documentation to reflect the new flashy name, or change automation testing tools/scripts, etc. And that's exactly my point. People in this thread claims they kept these old names for compatibility's sake, which at least in this case is just unproved speculation, basically because software doesn't look on WIM files to validate specific SKUs. Maybe they just like to call Remote Desktop Services as Terminal Server Services at MS campus, that's all.

[soulman]

I was referring to MS's VDI offer ofc. I though was clear we were discussing about an MS product, but seems certain people can't follow topic and needs extra specific advices... Ok, whatever.

I don't see anyone who needs additional advice on this point given the fact you just essentially tried to correct what I said... by saying what I said...

No one, except maybe they don't want to edit thousands of internal documentation to reflect the new flashy name, or change automation testing tools/scripts, etc. And that's exactly my point. People in this thread claims they kept these old names for compatibility's sake, which at least in this case is just unproved speculation, basically because software doesn't look on WIM files to validate specific SKUs. Maybe they just like to call Remote Desktop Services as Terminal Server Services at MS campus, that's all.

So two fallacies here?
1st) Not changing internal documentation or testing - then that's still compatibility, just in another spectrum. I still also suspect licencing compatibility, as somebody is yet to provide true clarity. As someone who has a background in developing, I agree it's a possibility, but see 2nd point and below quote.
2nd) You mention unproven speculation... Haven't you just done the same in your above statement? See below quote:

Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book just to answer one unimportant question I have, so I'm sure a question on a forum for someone who actually has an answer (and not just pretending) will suffice.

Really, it's the pretending to have a definitive answer that bothers me.

If you genuinely have an insightful statement with a definite answer, it would be nice, especially without the snark.

[Hyoenmadan86]

I don't see anyone who needs additional advice on this point given the fact you just essentially tried to correct what I said... by saying what I said...

So you like to play with words. Fine, play yourself. I don't care at all.

1st) Not changing internal documentation or testing - then that's still compatibility, just in another spectrum.

Just not the type of compatibility we were talking about here.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book just to answer one unimportant question I have, so I'm sure a question on a forum for someone who actually has an answer (and not just pretending) will suffice.

If is so "unimportant", then why you came to mess with this thread? Also, following your same logic, why do you think I would ever bother in digest an answer for your "unimportant" question?

---
Coming on topic again, OP questions were:

Immediately I thought, "Terminal server"?

Yes, that's how Remote Desktop Services are known internally by MS. There are blog posts in MSDN about this specific subject, and also old threads about it here, in BetaArchive.

Like in Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition?

Yes.

What is that doing inside the installation image of an OS released over 20 years after that?

Besides its original purpose as Terminal and RemoteApp Server, actually is also the foundation for certain Windows core features, as UAC and Fast User Switching, so is included in all windows SKUs, with the licensing engine enabling or disabling functionality depending in the reported SKU. Better and widely known names for the component are Remote Desktop Services or just Remote Desktop, with the legacy name kept by MS just for internal usage and references in documentation, source tree structures, tags or code.

[soulman]

What is that doing inside the installation image of an OS released over 20 years after that?

Besides its original purpose as Terminal and RemoteApp Server, actually is also the foundation for certain Windows core features, as UAC and Fast User Switching, so is included in all windows SKUs, with the licensing engine enabling or disabling functionality depending in the reported SKU. Better and widely known names for the component are Remote Desktop Services or just Remote Desktop, with the legacy name kept by MS just for internal usage and references in documentation, source tree structures, tags or code.

... which at least in this case is just unproved speculation, basically because software doesn't look on WIM files to validate specific SKUs. Maybe they just like to call Remote Desktop Services as Terminal Server Services at MS campus, that's all.

If you are the go-to expert for every reason why this is present, please share your sources of information with us so we can agree and become educated. You have provided no definitive source of information. It really does sit as unproven speculation at present.

If is so "unimportant", then why you came to mess with this thread? Also, following your same logic, why do you think I would ever bother in digest an answer for your "unimportant" question?

Just mostly because some people are incapable of sharing an answer with great insight and external backing, without the bitterness of the attitude of "I know best everyone else is a moron".

To really bring it back on topic, kindly share where you get your answer from and some relevant reading. If there are other reasons I'm not aware of I'd love an explanation with some reading that raises my eyebrows.

[Mister RoyFoy1]

So, I was using imagex.exe from the Windows Automated Installation Kit, which is used to install Windows to a .vhd file, and I told it to give me some info I needed about the image, when something caught my eye:




Immediately I thought, "Terminal server"? Like in Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition? What is that doing inside the installation image of an OS released over 20 years after that?

Microsoft likes leaving old files in new software. I think some w95 dial up files are in windows 8