What next?????? Help Please!!!

I just passed my A+ cert Tuesday so now I have completed my A+ and Network+. Next I'm thinking about taking 70-210. Do you guys think I should take this or just do Windows XP? I hear you can use either test towards your MCSA.

How does the Microsoft tests compare to the Comptia test? I heard 70-210 was the easiest of the Microsoft certs... is that true?

--Kerry

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

janmike

I haven't taken any M$ exams yet, but I've been studying M$ license manuals and related books for almost a year, so I've tasted studies in 70-210, 70-215, & 70-290(Server 2003). And, I've used both 2000 Pro & XP at work.

Based on these experiences, I would say that you may want to take 70-210 for your client OS, and then go for the MCSA in Server 2003 instead of 2k Server. This would be the quickest way to get a wider knowledge base in M$ OSs besides earning your Cert.

I say this because XP and Server 2003 are so very much alike in the desktop, because 2003 pretty much has all the "bells and whistles" of XP.
With 2000 Pro you're tested on most of (if not all of) the different ways of deploying the system--both on local machine and network. So far I haven't seen much about installation in the Server 2003 manuals, but you do get a lot of repetition on that in the 2000 Server manuals in comparison to 2000 Pro study materials.

So, throw your A+ & Network+ in for an elective(M$ does accept the combo for the one required elective on MCSA.), then pass the 70-210 for you client OS, do 70-290 for you Server OS, and finish it with the 70-291(appoximate equivalent to 70-218 in the W2k track) and you'll have MCSA
2003 sewed up. And, you'll have a somewhat broader field of knowledge on the M$ systems that you can build on and tweak as you gain experience.

I'm looking at this as a person that started in IT as a "start-over" career, and I'm not a young man, so I want to gain the most that I can from my studies, but I don't see why it's not a good strategy for a younger person.
Hope I can get one of these exams taken very soon now--I'm not getting any younger!

I don't know from experience how the CompTIA and M$ exams compare, but I do know that studying for them is the hardest part of all. However, from the many posts in these forums I would say that the M$ exam style makes their exams more difficult to master because M$ is OS specific and not written to be more generic as the CompTIA exams are written.My advice--Don't look for easy. Look for usefulness. How about we tackle the hardest one first and we'll learn the others as we go through that experience!? Just one last thought.

Best of luck!

Kerry_20

Thanks for the advice janmike. What you said helps me out a lot! I'm so ready to start studying for my MCSA. I have one more question for you. I was looking at a few post and I noticed where most people were saying that you should get MCSA 2000 and then you only have to take one test to have your MCSA 2003. What do you think about that?

--Kerry

janmike

Yep! That's what many say. What I said is from my own point of view and reflects my own thinking processes according to what I consider to be my own needs.

I would imagine that the 70-292 would carry a lot of knowledge on Server 2003, but I don't know about XP since either client can be used for MCSA 2000 or 2003.

On the other hand, if you have a lot of experience on W2k networks, or are presently working with them on your job, then you're best choice would probably be the MCSA W2k with the 70-292 upgrade to MCSA 2003.

I have had a couple other things influence my thinking to go for 2003.
First, one of my co-workers who just got MCSE on Windows 2000, has encouraged me to go for the 2003. He was my instructor on an A+ course of study that I took at a local state college, and I have a good deal of respect for him because of his teaching ability and because of his own personal accomplishments. Second, the place that I work for now has XP on some of the Help Desk PCs as a method of "in-house training", but it appears that W2k clients will continue to be the choice organizationally wide. Too, we're in a 5-year period of a whole new system being brought in to eventually handle all resources for operations, and it appears that the new servers will be 2003--or at least some of them. And also, some of the existing servers are being upgraded to 2003.

Well, hope this has helped. Again, best of luck on your decision.

garv221

Kerry_20 wrote:

I just passed my A+ cert Tuesday so now I have completed my A+ and Network+. Next I'm thinking about taking 70-210. Do you guys think I should take this or just do Windows XP? I hear you can use either test towards your MCSA.

How does the Microsoft tests compare to the Comptia test? I heard 70-210 was the easiest of the Microsoft certs... is that true?

--Kerry

I'm currently studying my MCSA 2003 (when I have time).

. I've done 270 & currently writing my 290 at the end of oct. I can't wait until I'm done with it so I can put full attention into Cisco. Anyways, the reason I choose 2003 is b/c I am a Sys. Admin. on a 2000 Server network w/ XP clients, I know 2K Server very well & figured if I'm going to study might as well study something I'm less familiar with. I say go with what you have LESS experience with. If you have no experience, go with 2000 b/c majority of network AD's have it & then upgade. I'm finding 290 pretty simple the only real difference I care about between 2K is the shadow copy & ASR. GL!

skully93

I'm doing the XP exam, but still taking the 2000 track. I will immediately updated to '03 afterward, but there is just such a large installed base of Win2k out there. Plus it's what I'm used to.

sab4you

Im going to have to disagree with the above opinions.

Windows 2000 servers are far more prevelant in the work environment than 2003 is. I would say get your windows 2000 mcse and then work on the upgrade.

Reason being is not the knowledge, sure if you take windows 2003 MCSE you should have no problem getting around on 2000 - but I am thinking more towards whom is hiring. More than likely they are running 2000 and the job may ask for a 2000 certification.

Its a mind game and you could work it either way, but IMO its best to have certification in what most people are running and asking for. 2003 is the future but alot of companies dont see a reason to upgrade since 2000 works just great, especially comparing the change from NT to 2000 is much bigger than 2000 to 2003.

Lastly, I would say take the XP over 2000 professional. This may seem like a contradiction to what I was saying, but in reality you can still take XP and be certified for MCSE 2000. XP is reasonably common in the workplace as a desktop and your really not going to learn anything new by taking windows 2000 pro if you plan to take 2003 server anyways.

The only lesson you need to know about ANY field is to get experience in what people want. If the companies are hiring for windows 2000 administrator then get it. If they are hiring for win 2003, then get that. I just see more doors open for a more common server platform. Get the job and then upgrade.

Dont forget you can also get a MCSA 2000, then upgrade to MCSE 2003. Many hiring staff dont know what a MCSA is and when they scan your resume and see both they will probably snag you even if told to look for a MCSE 2000. They will probably think its a typo lol.

Either choice you do, its not going to be so wrong where nobody will hire you. Do what you feel is best and good luck.