One thing is that your first link is with a 16" RC and the second one with an 8" newtonian. Stars gain in brightness proportional to the square of the aperture (this is different from diffuse light sources), so a 16" telescope will have much brighter stars than an 8" one. In addition, the image scale is different: The first image has 0.5 arcsec/pixel, the second one is 1.0 arcsec/pixel, so "same size" stars would seem half the size in the second one. Then RC scopes tend to have a bit larger stars than newtonians, due to a larger diffraction pattern by the higher central obstruction. And then there is, most importantly as already stated, narrowband vs LRGB: So, there are four good reasons already why the first image has more prominent stars.
Also, I, personally, do not like the stars in the second image better than the first: They have obvious processing artefacts: Ringing, the shapes of larger stars are off, and most importantly, the diffraction spikes of the newtonian are mostly missing. I think the second picture looks a lot like starnet++ was used to fabricate a grown/blurred mask, and differential stretch between stars and nebula - actually I now realise that is basically what the author did in Photoshop (he stretched first and then subtracted).
In Pixinsight, I found the EZ Processing Suite has a quite decent star reduction algorithm. It basically semi-automates what I did by hand before, and I like the results in some images (especially my 11" RASA images seem to profit).
In general, I feel star reduction techniques should be used very sparingly, because they tend to cause the aforementioned artefacts.
The first picture is five years old, long before starnet++ existed. I am not sure any star reduction techniques were used. I also do not think the image needs it. Personally, I like it very much - but that is a matter of taste.