I'd love it if instead of down-voting this, we could actually discuss where you disagree. I've been known to be wrong about things, so enlighten me.
I don't know first hand, but I'm guessing the scheduler would be largely different, as is the security methodology- heck I can't imagine much similar except 'code runs here, os makes sure code runs'
I remember my friend (a low level engineer at nokia) talking to be about windows 3.1 and how Microsoft put the GUI directly in the kernel because it was too slow otherwise, he went on to elude most of the security issues with windows were based on that.
also, when it comes to remote management and headless machines, the unix-like family rule the roost.
Maybe. I bet remote management of desktops with Group Policy, and a whole slew of Microsoft and 3rd party management services, is more common in Windows-land.
In headless server terms, you've been able to install and run headless Windows Server for years now. It won't be as common because it hasn't been around as long, but it's certainly possible now.
And in remote management on the server side, Server Manager shows other servers in your organization (by default?) in Windows Server 2012, and PowerShell was designed with remoting support since its inception.
And WMI and Remote Desktop for server administration both should count as well, having being in Windows for many many years.
The most popular 'remote management' thing missing from Windows is SSH, which seems a bit of a deliberately biased way to look at things. If you work in a Windows environment, there are plenty of ways to remotely manage your servers/services.
I don't doubt that such things are possible in windows land, I feel most programming these days is so far removed from the kernel and how it handles the hardware that it's much of a muchness to decide what you'll use.
the lack of licenses certainly help with linux things if you're not in need of support though.