I have the security+ and the 70-270 which I think both certs count towards the 2000 and 2003. So at this point I could go either road....
I'm just wondering from an employer point of view if it looks better to show that you have MCSA 2000/2003 vs having MCSA 2003.
For my current Job it might actually be better for me to do both since we have mostly 2000 servers but we do have 1 2003 server as well....
I'm taking a week or 2 off before starting to study for my next exam and I am still unsure if I am going straight for 2k3 or going for 2k then upgrading later....
If you are an MCSA on 2K3, I think employers would recognize that you should be able to handle working on a 2000 server with minimal learning curve.
However, it would only require one extra exam to get MCSA on both W2K and W2K3. Since you already have sec+ and 270, take 215 and 218 to get MCSA on 2K, then take 292 to upgrade to MCSA on W2K3.
I have the security+ and the 70-270 which I think both certs count towards the 2000 and 2003. So at this point I could go either road....
I'm just wondering from an employer point of view if it looks better to show that you have MCSA 2000/2003 vs having MCSA 2003.
For my current Job it might actually be better for me to do both since we have mostly 2000 servers but we do have 1 2003 server as well....
I'm taking a week or 2 off before starting to study for my next exam and I am still unsure if I am going straight for 2k3 or going for 2k then upgrading later....
assumming money and time isnt a problem, having MCSA on 2000/2003 definitely doesnt hurt. It sure will be a nice addition to your stacked creditials.
I'll be the voice of dissent here. If you are new to certifications and new to Windows Server and the concepts which are tested on the MCSA, I would suggest just sticking to 2003. The the 2000 to 2003 upgrade exam is HAAAARD! Because it focuses on what has changed from 2000 to 2003 and some of the new features. If you're new, it will be much easier for you to start with a fresh slate on the latest version of the cert. Having the 2000 next to the 2003 on your resume isn't going to be worth the extra headache and the employer isn't going to care that much weather it's 2000 or 2003, in fact I think they would lean toward preferring 2003.
Concentrate on becoming an expert on 2003 for now.
IT guy since 12/00
Recent: 11/2019 - RHCSA (RHEL 7); 2/2019 - Updated VCP to 6.5 (just a few days before VMware discontinued the re-cert policy...)
Working on: RHCE/Ansible
Future: Probably continued Red Hat Immersion, Possibly VCAP Design, or maybe a completely different path. Depends on job demands...
Yeah, everything points to me doing 2K then doing the upgrade to 2K3.
I have a lot more hands on experience with 2000 server and advanced server here at work anyway.
I even asked my boss what he thought coming from an employers point of view. He said that it does look better to him to see both on there.
The only thing I'm worried about is the 292 exam... I keep reading about how many people fail with really low scores and how they thought they were well prepared and would pass with no problem.
Anyway, I do beleive that I will be going the route of 2000 then 2003. Thanks for the suggestions!
You could also think about how long it is going to take you to do both. Unless you hump it pretty quick, this time next year Vista will be all the rage. Once organizations start on the up grade trail I would think that 2003 will go with it and 2000 will become less and less important. NT 4 certs faded in value pretty quick once the 2000 upgrades started.
Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of technology?... The Shadow DO
At least for my current job the 2000 material will be just as helpful for me to have as the 2003 stuff....
I do plan on being an MCSA 2000 by the end of the year... I might even be both by the end of the year...
At least for my current job the 2000 material will be just as helpful for me to have as the 2003 stuff....
I do plan on being an MCSA 2000 by the end of the year... I might even be both by the end of the year...
Go for it.
I am planning to complete my MCSA 2K and 2K3 by the end of the year too. I am one away from 2K MCSA, then the upgrade 292 for 2K3.
I started out in the days of NT4 and cut my eye teeth on W2K and Active Directory. Any formal training I have is on W2K, and I have upgraded more than a couple of NT4/Novell networks to W2K, so that's where my primary experience is. However, my current environment is as an Admin over a W2K3 AD domain. We have about 25-30 servers, of which I think 7 or so are W2K3, so I have plenty of hands-on with both.
When covering the 290 and 291 exams you will notice that a lot of references are made to 2000 server and the 'improvements' within 2003.
To be honest, if you are working for a firm with a 2000 domain environment (like myself) then MCSA 2003 is more than suitable, and if they ever upgrade then you will have the skills already in place.
Edit: Typo
Microsoft Certifications: MCITP:EA, MCSE:S, MCSA:M, MCDST, MCTS: Vista Config, MCITP: Ent Support
Citrix Certifications: CCA XenApp 4.5/5.0 and XenServer 5.0
Other: Marathon Certified Consultant (HA, FT and VM), ISEB InfoSec Management Principles and Security+
Working on: CISSP and Check Team Member
windows 2003 server it is sayed to be be an update , to windows 2000 server.It is not a big diference to windows 2000.
You may take directly MCSA on windows 2003 ,if your job doesen[t request you MCSA 2000 specificaly !
If that were true, then 292/296 would be unneccesary and would be easy. Neither is true. Lots of enhancements and changes to 2003 from 2000, enough to make a separate cert be required.
However, if you are proficient in W2K3, then you probably would be able to work on W2K as well.
Megadeth4168
Member Posts: 2,157
Comments
Do you already have any 2000 certs or are you starting from nothing?
I am going straight for mcsa2003 then to MCSE2k3 which I recomend
Working back on my CCNA and then possibly CCNP.
I'm just wondering from an employer point of view if it looks better to show that you have MCSA 2000/2003 vs having MCSA 2003.
For my current Job it might actually be better for me to do both since we have mostly 2000 servers but we do have 1 2003 server as well....
I'm taking a week or 2 off before starting to study for my next exam and I am still unsure if I am going straight for 2k3 or going for 2k then upgrading later....
However, it would only require one extra exam to get MCSA on both W2K and W2K3. Since you already have sec+ and 270, take 215 and 218 to get MCSA on 2K, then take 292 to upgrade to MCSA on W2K3.
assumming money and time isnt a problem, having MCSA on 2000/2003 definitely doesnt hurt. It sure will be a nice addition to your stacked creditials.
Cheers!
Concentrate on becoming an expert on 2003 for now.
Recent: 11/2019 - RHCSA (RHEL 7); 2/2019 - Updated VCP to 6.5 (just a few days before VMware discontinued the re-cert policy...)
Working on: RHCE/Ansible
Future: Probably continued Red Hat Immersion, Possibly VCAP Design, or maybe a completely different path. Depends on job demands...
I have a lot more hands on experience with 2000 server and advanced server here at work anyway.
I even asked my boss what he thought coming from an employers point of view. He said that it does look better to him to see both on there.
The only thing I'm worried about is the 292 exam... I keep reading about how many people fail with really low scores and how they thought they were well prepared and would pass with no problem.
Anyway, I do beleive that I will be going the route of 2000 then 2003. Thanks for the suggestions!
So if you had to choose only one, choose 2003.
If you go for 2000 and try to upgrade to 2003 via 292 but get stuck, you could always take 290/291.
I do plan on being an MCSA 2000 by the end of the year... I might even be both by the end of the year...
I am planning to complete my MCSA 2K and 2K3 by the end of the year too. I am one away from 2K MCSA, then the upgrade 292 for 2K3.
I know I'm far more familiar with the 2000 platform.
You may take directly MCSA on windows 2003 ,if your job doesen[t request you MCSA 2000 specificaly !
To be honest, if you are working for a firm with a 2000 domain environment (like myself) then MCSA 2003 is more than suitable, and if they ever upgrade then you will have the skills already in place.
Edit: Typo
Citrix Certifications: CCA XenApp 4.5/5.0 and XenServer 5.0
Other: Marathon Certified Consultant (HA, FT and VM), ISEB InfoSec Management Principles and Security+
Working on: CISSP and Check Team Member
If that were true, then 292/296 would be unneccesary and would be easy. Neither is true. Lots of enhancements and changes to 2003 from 2000, enough to make a separate cert be required.
However, if you are proficient in W2K3, then you probably would be able to work on W2K as well.