Windows 2000 or xp mcp's?

Az1

i have an option with my learning provider to do windows 2000 or xp for my mcp so i can get my MCSA and MCSE which one should i go for xp would be the latest thing yet someone told me 2000 will be around for years about 5-10 before xp come into major businesses? what do
you think?

princess4peace

Why dont you think the need to be abreast with the latest technolgies that had taken care of the older ones in so many areas with improvements is better?

If i may suggest to you, go for Xp

iamstevejobs

princess is right.

I am currently working toward the 2k3 tests and can assure you that alot of the knowlege is transferable back to the server 2000 enviroment. perhaps not the details but the overal concepts and generalities are. the trouble shooting and problem solving skills are only a part of the track. The other large part of the training track is the design element which you surely would want to be forward thinking on.

I would imagine that if a new site is comming up they are going to be more willing to go to a 2k3 AD environment vs older tech.

Plantwiz

Why not test in the discipline you currently work with? If that's W2K, you could upgrade later if necessary! (or when necessary)

princess4peace

Plantwiz wrote:

Why not test in the discipline you currently work with? If that's W2K, you could upgrade later if necessary! (or when necessary)

Plantwiz, what you said is equally ideal, but he was given the options of win2k and/or WinXp. That was what informed my suggestion of Xp.

Plantwiz

princess4peace wrote:

Plantwiz wrote:

Why not test in the discipline you currently work with? If that's W2K, you could upgrade later if necessary! (or when necessary)

Plantwiz, what you said is equally ideal, but he was given the options of win2k and/or WinXp. That was what informed my suggestion of Xp.

You stated your opinion (which I read prior to posting) and I stated mine.

Given the options, I'll almost always recommend testing in the area one works with, period. While there are a lot of XP clients out there....many companies are still flooded with W2K as well as unfortunately Win98.

Drakonblayde

I run into alot of 2k servers, alot of companies don't feel it's worth it to upgrade to 2003. Having played with both, I see their point.

So yeah, I agree with Plantwiz, if you're in an environment with xp clients and 2k servers, take your client as xp and your server as 2k.

You can make the arguement that alot of that knowledge can be backported. You're probably right. But neither XP nor 2k3 were groundbreaking, it's the same os with bugfixes that most users never knew existed. And it's prettier. Those familiar with 2k will readily acclimate to an xp and 2k3 environment.

Certwise, right now, it really doesn't matter. When longhorn hits, we'll see if the situation radically changes. Until then, it's all pretty much the same. In the case of servers, it's the software that you're running on it (like Exchange, SQL server, etc) that differentiate them, not the base OS they're running.

Hell, I dislike 2k3 for the simple reason that I can't **** with my TS licenses like I could on 2k

keatron

While I don't completely agree with drakonblayde, (I can make a strong argument for upgrading to 2k3). With my smaller clients, once they see volume shadowing they're ready to go. But back to the point, I agree 100% with plantwiz. Certify in what you operate in or support daily.

Drakonblayde

Not to really start an arguement, but I'm curious, what about 2k3 makes you think it's worth upgrading to? Just the volume shadowing? While I agree it's nice and a little more convienent for the admin, I think it breeds lazy users. I prefer to educate my users.

Besides that, I mostly support law firms, accountants, and realty offices. In the case of the law firms, they already had a document management system in place (like DocsOpen or iManage). Everytime they save a document, it creates a new version of that document. Back that up on a RAID5, and 2k3/XP's shadow copy becomes pretty much useless. It wasn't a hardsell to get the realtors and accountants to let me install the same kind of system.

Plantwiz

Drakonblayde wrote:

I think it breeds lazy users. I prefer to educate my users.

.

Well, this is a very good plan and should continue, but the software is migrating toward 'end-user' as well as improving Admin features.

I do like the added security of W2K3. TS licensing is an extra expense...ow well.

Shadow Copies is nice for the reason it saves us time in dealing with people who are emotional for deleting something the need in the next 10 minutes....so while it may breed a lazy user...it makes a happier support team

Everything seems faster (and not just because MS tells us it is).

Some things I fall sucker for on the 'latest and greatest', but when we trialed this in 'beta' it appeared more impressive and we've changed over almost all our clients...some have noticed slight network imporvements..others just didn't work their servers that hard.

Oh yes...command lines

keatron

No problem drakonblayde, I know you're not starting an argument

I'll list some of my favorite improvements here.

1. Active directory management (including new command line tools) is much much simpler. I just migrated a manufacturing firm over to 2k3. The upgrade/migration process itself is much more streamlined. You should play around with the ADMT (2.0 is the version I think). One big help was the allowing of migrating passwords over to the newly built domain (poor existing conditions didn't really allow for an in place upgrade). So for the end users, the migration was truely transparent.

2. One of my more tech savvy clients (or at least they think they are) decided they would perform the upgrade. In addition to gross DNS mis-configurations they had committed a usually critical error. They named the new domain DOMAIN by accepting defaults. After two months of operating like this they called me in to redo everything so that the domain could be named what it was supposed to be (xxx.local in this case). No problem, it took me every bit of 10 minutes to rename the domain! This is a new feature of the 2k3 platform. I also employed this same technique when a small finance firm I support got bought out by a bigger finance firm I support. It was a cakewalk compared to before.

One of my favorite tools happens to be Group policy objects. There are several reported improvements here, but I will only post the ones I've experienced and used personally. For one, the added functions of backup, restore, import, copy, and reporting of Group Policy objects has made my job easier. These processes are fully scriptable, which allows me to automate these processes in ways I only wished for in the NT days (even in 2K in some cases)

The entire MMC allows drag and drop in most operations (moving users to another group, moving computers to another group etc etc etc.)

We have quiet a few large and very spread out clients. Cross forest authentication and cross forest authorization is another biggie. These babies enable secure access to resources when the user account is in one forest and the computer account is in another forest. Users can securely access resources in other forests, using either NTLM or Kerberos. Best part is they dont have to sacrifice the single sign-on. The administrative benefit is obviously having only one user ID and password maintained in the user's home forest. I was given a set of new nike clubs by the CIO of one client for successfully implementing this and making the process a reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just now getting a real usage (and full understanding) of the software restriction policies. In a nutshell, untrusted software cannot run, period. I've only employed this in one of our test environments here in our building, but so far, so good. I'll post more about this as I experience more with it.

I don't know if you've deployed datacenter or not, but the clustering is totally amazing. Look for this to be a big hit where there's huge exchange enviroments. The max for clusters in 2000 was 4 nodes, that's now doubled to eight. By the way, changing cluster configs does NOT require rebooting in 2k3 All of this goes along with making more available and dependable print clusters. The drivers replicate automatically to all nodes in the cluster, so there's no need for manual configuration anymore in this scenario. On on partiuclar floor in our building (serves as basically the printing and presentation preparation area) we have literally hundreds of printers, plotters and print servers protruding from every wall. However we did learn the hard way that print clusters are not available for the web edition (nor the standard edition from what I'm told).

As mentioned before, the new command line tools are many and they are robust. This might be why so many people complain of being slammed with command line questions on the 2k3 upgrade exams.

There's built-in support for IPv6 (see my post in the A+ forum for more on that)

These are just some of the things I've witnessed and documented. I've prepared an extensive report for some of my clients and for some of the staff here. It's very rich and long, but I'll happily email it or maybe send it to Johan to add to his technotes.

Drakonblayde, I understand where you're coming from, there are several things I've read about in the past concerning 2k3 that are just simply over-rated or not true. But I guess it's part of our job to get the whole story about a product before giving reccomendations. I've worked with 2k3 since the first Beta and still learn (or stumble upon) new features all the time. Hope this helps and somewhat answers your question.

Drakonblayde

keatron wrote:

No problem drakonblayde, I know you're not starting an argument

2. One of my more tech savvy clients (or at least they think they are) decided they would perform the upgrade. In addition to gross DNS mis-configurations they had committed a usually critical error. They named the new domain DOMAIN by accepting defaults. After two months of operating like this they called me in to redo everything so that the domain could be named what it was supposed to be (xxx.local in this case). No problem, it took me every bit of 10 minutes to rename the domain! This is a new feature of the 2k3 platform. I also employed this same technique when a small finance firm I support got bought out by a bigger finance firm I support. It was a cakewalk compared to before.

Ok, that is nice. I normally don't deal with migrations, if someones ringing me up for on-site support, it's usually for an install or a complete overhaul of what they laughingly call their 'infrastructure'. So I get to set things up the way I want

One of my favorite tools happens to be Group policy objects. There are several reported improvements here, but I will only post the ones I've experienced and used personally. For one, the added functions of backup, restore, import, copy, and reporting of Group Policy objects has made my job easier. These processes are fully scriptable, which allows me to automate these processes in ways I only wished for in the NT days (even in 2K in some cases)

Hrm, ok, admittedly, nice

We have quiet a few large and very spread out clients. Cross forest authentication and cross forest authorization is another biggie. These babies enable secure access to resources when the user account is in one forest and the computer account is in another forest. Users can securely access resources in other forests, using either NTLM or Kerberos. Best part is they dont have to sacrifice the single sign-on. The administrative benefit is obviously having only one user ID and password maintained in the user's home forest. I was given a set of new nike clubs by the CIO of one client for successfully implementing this and making the process a reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, again, that sounds nice. I'll admit that my experience with multiple forests is pretty slim. I'm usually just dealing with one domain, that I setup in the first place. I can see now I'm going to have to do some more playing around to get current

I don't know if you've deployed datacenter or not, but the clustering is totally amazing. Look for this to be a big hit where there's huge exchange enviroments. The max for clusters in 2000 was 4 nodes, that's now doubled to eight. By the way, changing cluster configs does NOT require rebooting in 2k3 All of this goes along with making more available and dependable print clusters. The drivers replicate automatically to all nodes in the cluster, so there's no need for manual configuration anymore in this scenario. On on partiuclar floor in our building (serves as basically the printing and presentation preparation area) we have literally hundreds of printers, plotters and print servers protruding from every wall. However we did learn the hard way that print clusters are not available for the web edition (nor the standard edition from what I'm told).

I'm not big on windows clusters. Honestly. I've played around in a few datacenters, done a couple moves (matter of fact, my boss is loaning me out from Cisco to Sun to help move a small one this weekend... yay for not sleeping for three days, but hey, they're paying doubletime...), and they've always been using either Sun or IBM hardware, and their clustering runs circles around micrsoft The only windows boxes on the network were usually delegated to Citrix server duties.

These are just some of the things I've witnessed and documented. I've prepared an extensive report for some of my clients and for some of the staff here. It's very rich and long, but I'll happily email it or maybe send it to Johan to add to his technotes.

forsaken at drakonblayde dot net please.

I'd be quite interested in taking a look at it. I'm always happy to expand my knowledge base.

Drakonblayde, I understand where you're coming from, there are several things I've read about in the past concerning 2k3 that are just simply over-rated or not true. But I guess it's part of our job to get the whole story about a product before giving reccomendations. I've worked with 2k3 since the first Beta and still learn (or stumble upon) new features all the time. Hope this helps and somewhat answers your question.

Well, my major issue with 2k3 is that, in the environments I work in, it's of little to no benefit to upgrade. The cost just isn't justified. On the other hand, I don't deal with large microsoft based enterprise networks, and without an MCSE, most folks aren't going to let me touch them. Which is fine with me, I'm a Cisco weenie, I like playing with hardware that lets the boxes talk to each other. I'm more than happy with leaving the machines behind the network to some other poor sap with a receeding (or soon to be) hairline

TeKniques

Hey Drakonblayde I was just wondering if that was your website? drakonblayde.net

I went to it after reading this post and I already had my firefox upgraded to 1.0.4
Was the first thing I did when got to work today

Sorry to get off topic

Webmaster

keatron wrote:

It's very rich and long, but I'll happily email it or maybe send it to Johan to add to his technotes.

Sure, send it over. If I won't use it for any TechNotes, I'll find or create a suitable place to put it online here at TE. You can also create a new topic here or in the 2003 forums and send me the doc, I'll put it online (on our server) and add it to your post.

Back that up on a RAID5, and 2k3/XP's shadow copy becomes pretty much useless.

I don't want to start an argument either but do want to point out that 'shadow copies for shared folders' feature is useful regardless of the underlying storage system. (see me TechNotes here). Raid 5 does not encompass the advantages offered by shadow copy volumes, the latter is basically undelete for shares. It enables the user to 'restore' a modified, deleted, or corrupted file without any interference of an admin who has to restore it from backup media. Anyway, I think the reason this is such a great and welcomed feature is that it should have been there all along (trashcan should have worked for shared folders since 95. though shadow copy is much more).

Relatively only a small subset of the improvements in 2003. 95-98-me etc, were like the previous version with some bells and whistles, but this has never been the case for Windows server products (even 3.51 to 4 was more than worth it and we all know the major differences between nt 4 and 2000, i.e. ADS, NTFS 5). In Windows 2003 Shadow copy volumes is definitely one of my favorites. But also ASR, RMS, and the less noticable features such as VoIP support for Remote Assistance and all the other little improvements and security enhancements and additional nifty admin tools definitely make it a worthy upgrade. Most of it is technology push, so whether you actually need it... In my experience it's often the software that runs on the OS that makes companies upgrade rather than the 'need' for a new Windows version and it's features (i.e. they want the latest Exchange and want the numbers (2003) to match).

But don't expect it to lower the TCO as MS claims with every new OS or product. That's good though, cause often we are the 'C'.

To answer the original poster: I also agree with Plantwiz, if your current employer uses 2000 and/or you have experience with that one, go for the 210 cert. In case you are new to IT and don't expect to put the skills and knowledge you pick up from studying for the cert to use anytime soon, I'd definitely go for Windows XP, i.e. the latest (It certainly won't take 5-10 years). If you are planning to go for the entire MCSE track, I recommend going for 2003, and hence XP (XP as the client because of the larger amount of overlap with the 2003 server exam). If time and budget allows, the best thing you can do is get both (MCSE 2000 and than upgrade to 2003), because that will make you a more attractive candidate for the many upgrades that are and will be performed over the next several years.

Something else to consider from that point of view is the fact that many current and future MCSEs 2003 are already MCSE 2000 'and' have experience with the latter, so those will be preferred for performing the upgrade. Since it's unlikely that someone starting with MCSE now, will be finished with it and actually get an MCSE job (one that requires the corresponding knowledge and skills) anytime soon, MCSE 2003 is likely a better investment. But when it comes to the client (XP/2000) go with the one you'll need sooner, i.e. cause your current employer or the major potential employers in your area run it.

Old operating systems have been running since there were newer versions (;)), the majority 'will' have upgraded or be upgrading (running mixed environments) to Win2k3 before the next version of Windows becomes available (Longhorn Server, supposedly in 2007), so it's not likely you can go wrong by becoming certified for the latest version. Whether the timing is optimal depends a lot on your situation (location, experience, previous education, ambitions, etc. etc.).

Drakonblayde

TeKniques wrote:

Hey Drakonblayde I was just wondering if that was your website? drakonblayde.net

I went to it after reading this post and I already had my firefox upgraded to 1.0.4
Was the first thing I did when got to work today

Sorry to get off topic

Yeah, it's my site. I got bored a few weeks ago, decided I didn't like paying for hosting, and brought everything in house. Had an interesting weekend getting postfix and courier to integrate and authenticate to a mysql backend hehe

Drakonblayde

Back that up on a RAID5, and 2k3/XP's shadow copy becomes pretty much useless.

I don't want to start an argument either but do want to point out that 'shadow copies for shared folders' feature is useful regardless of the underlying storage system. (see me TechNotes here). Raid 5 does not encompass the advantages offered by shadow copy volumes, the latter is basically undelete for shares. It enables the user to 'restore' a modified, deleted, or corrupted file without any interference of an admin who has to restore it from backup media. Anyway, I think the reason this is such a great and welcomed feature is that it should have been there all along (trashcan should have worked for shared folders since 95. though shadow copy is much more).

Relatively only a small subset of the improvements in 2003. 95-98-me etc, were like the previous version with some bells and whistles, but this has never been the case for Windows server products (even 3.51 to 4 was more than worth it and we all know the major differences between nt 4 and 2000, i.e. ADS, NTFS 5). In Windows 2003 Shadow copy volumes is definitely one of my favorites.

Oh, I understand what shadow copies are and how they work just fine. It's basically automatically backing up and versioning your important files so that if you mess up a copy, you still have the originals to refer to. Been working with it for years. Most law firms are well aware of the need to keep all your versions of a document, hence a doc management system (which is a little misleading, since it can pretty much store and version *everything*, not just documents), so the concept of shadow copying is nothing new, just new to windows with the latest public versions. My comment about RAID5 isn't meant to parrallel to shadow copying, just saying it's a necessary complement if you're serious about actually keeping all your versions, since shadow copy or no shadow copy, if your stuff is all on one disk and that disk fails, you're just as screwed hehe

My point was that while it's nice to see such ability applied natively to the OS, I don't think it's good enough to force an upgrade to the OS.

In my experience it's often the software that runs on the OS that makes companies upgrade rather than the 'need' for a new Windows version and it's features (i.e. they want the latest Exchange and want the numbers (2003) to match).

Which was one of my points hehe. From what y'all are saying, 2k3 makes it easier on the admin (I'll prolly find out this weekend... I refused to touch any MS OS until the 1st service pack is out), but not ground breaking enough to really require the upgrade unless you happen to be upgrading other stuff (I'm still amazed at the amount of Exchange 5.5 setups that are still in production)

Webmaster

I guess I skimmed over the second word in your comment, sorry about that. You're right though, shadow copies are hardly orginal, but orginallity is overrated, it's how the idea is implemented and it seems to me MS did a good job. A great feature, but no, by itself not enough reason to upgrade.

From what y'all are saying, 2k3 makes it easier on the admin

Mostly, yes, at least I am. Most users won't notice that much difference. The admins are the ones managing the servers and benifit most from more efficient and convenient administration (hence, according to MS a lower TCO, and in larger environments that's often actually true though I sometimes doubt it justifies the cost of upgrading...) For the user the server will mainly still be a remote file/print server or application server (i.e. backoffice products), hopefully more stable and secure. Support for the latest software technologies (ie. required by backoffice or other major applications) but also hardware (more scalable) is a common reason to upgrade. But like I said in my previous reply, whether you actually need those... If everything you need to run runs good on the current OS, you are not required to "upgrade unless you happen to be upgrading other stuff" (that require w2k3, or just runs better on it), microsoft stops supporting it, or your manager found out the competition is running on 2003 and he doesn't want to stay behind.

keatron

Yes Johan, you hit a major point there. Let your clients get to far behind and you'll find yourself trying to explain why the competition manages the same size and type of environment with 3 admins while your client needs 7!!!

Drakonblayde, I truely understand your points also. On the opposite side of the coin, I've been into places behnid trigger happy "consultants" who were very quick to **** the latest and "greatest" on clients only to end up with a huge mess. If the upgrade doesn't enhance, drive, or empower the company's bottom line and aid in streamlining the business processes, save them the money, and time of going through a pointless upgrade and migration. Nobody knows your clients needs better than you