Windows 7 or 8

ptilsen

Have to disagree with paulgswanson on Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was widely deployed, both as a server and as a workstation. It was easily the most stable OS of its time, as well.

As far as Windows 8, bottom line is that virtually all large organizations skipped Vista and are now upgrading XP to 7. Some are probably upgrading 2000 to 7 because XP was a relatively low-value upgrade and Vista was a negative-value upgrade. Many organizations won't switch off of XP until after end of support.

My recommendation is get certified in Windows 7 because that's where all the value is for the next three years. Windows 7 will not see wide adoption at the enterprise level this year. We might see tablets with it get integrated, but we won't see desktops upgraded to it because it is low business value and again, everyone is just getting around to 7 or recently finished 7.

Get certified in 8, too, if you want, because as fly2dw said, it is not that difficult to learn both. The interface changes are big, but a lot of the rest is fairly similar, and 8 really builds off 7. The problem with getting certified on just 8, however, is that even if you can do just as much with 7 with that knowledge, it doesn't bring the same value to your resume. Windows 7 certification can add a lot of hits, while Windows 8 will add few.

JayTheCracker

DOD didn't skip Windows 8

my vote is for windows 8~!

fly2dw

ptilsen wrote: »

The problem with getting certified on just 8, however, is that even if you can do just as much with 7 with that knowledge, it doesn't bring the same value to your resume. Windows 7 certification can add a lot of hits, while Windows 8 will add few.

Very true! Sometimes I forget that the agencies are pretty much just looking for key words/qualifications, and from that perspective, coupled with the "Here and now" attitude, Windows 7 makes more sense. But strictly from a personal learning perspective I still say Windows 8. Taking the value on your resume out of the picture (Why would you I know, but just keep with me) you wouldn't advise somebody to study Windows Server 2008 instead of Windows Server 2008 R2. I feel this is a similar situation with Windows 7 and 8. Not exactly the same granted.

The problem for Windows 8, is that it does not warrant being called a new OS, as it is like a big feature/service pack. Looking at Microsoft's other software releases such as Server 2012 and SC Suite it really doesn't matter if the client is Windows 7 or 8 as it deals with it the same (No functionality gain), so there is no real push for Windows 8 (At home it is down to personal taste so there maybe more requirement there). I think that is why Windows 7 will always overshadow Windows 8 (and the FACT Windows 7 is a good OS).

About7Narwhal

Slowhand wrote: »

While Windows 8 is indeed the future, there are lots of companies only now migrating off XP to Windows 7. If you want my opinion, go for MCSA Windows 7 now, then do the one-exam upgrade to MCSA Windows 8 a little further down the road when you have some more cash on hand.

+1 to Slowhand's opinion. I intend to follow this path as well to cover my bases. If Windows 8 is a no-go, I only wasted a little bit of money and a little time upgrading my knowledge. If you go with Windows 8 only and it flops, you will have to unlearn the nice easy upgrades 8 threw in and learn it all over again for Windows 7.

While I agree with a lot of opinions on both sides, I feel that Windows 7 will provide a considerable value and will allow you the time to reevaluate how 8 has developed in the market at a later time to determine if an upgrade exam is in order. As far as the dispute about how Windows 8 will fare in the future, I think it is largely irrelevant at this point as it makes more sense to go with the industry standard due to its market share and the ease of upgrade later on. You can always upgrade if you want to learn 8 later, but you cannot go backwards as easily. Keep that in mind.

N2IT

The OP is probably more confused now than ever

Both sides make some really good points. Ultimately it's up to the OP, but honestly I don't think you can go wrong with either or. Both will get hits on the MCSA alone if you follow out the Win 7 / Win 8 tracks.

DoubleNNs

paulgswanson wrote: »

When your deploying thousands of OS, a single instance of large scale failure actually means quite a lot. However lets bring this thread back the point of discussion he wanted to know what Cert to get, and where the most value would be. That would still be 7 [lets remember how long XP lasted in comparision to Vista or Win2000 compared to Win98], that is unless he want to work for the DoD; I hear they are deploying Win8.

Oh, and since you want Historical Trend here ya go.

Win 3.0 Greatly ebraced model of efficiency (for back then)
Win95 Skipped to many changes businesses uncertain about change

Win98 Most liked it fixed many flaws from 95 included several Security fixes
Win2000 Skipped again to unstable in an actual work environment

WinNT (I have only seen these in gov facilities)
WinXP (We know it we love it.)
== Both used but Xp more common since more secure, and eventually NT was phased out nd replaced by XP anyway

Vista Skipped, far to unstable, vendor approved, consumer rejected
Win7 Most companies are activly moving to this right now. and those same companies have no intention of grabbing 8

Win8 - So far still being ignored by most
Time will only tell.

So as you can from that, and from what I have observed only Xp has been the odd ball and broken the chain of Win-Fail-Win-Fail
I'm not as big fool though you think I might be.

You forget about WIN ME lol. Which also was skipped - skipped so hard a lot of people don't even know it existed.

the_hutch

N2IT wrote: »

The OP is probably more confused now than ever

LOL...I know. I was thinking the EXACT same thing.

dbrink

I would also recommend going the Windows 7 route and then upgrading to Windows 8 if you can. Otherwise, I would probably stick to Windows 7 for now since I think it will be more prevalent in enterprises for a while. I have a hard time believing that organizations are going to take the time to retrain users on how to use the new UI in Windows 8.

marco71

paulgswanson wrote: »

Oh, and since you want Historical Trend here ya go.

Win 3.0 Greatly ebraced model of efficiency (for back then)
Win95 Skipped to many changes businesses uncertain about change

Win98 Most liked it fixed many flaws from 95 included several Security fixes
Win2000 Skipped again to unstable in an actual work environment

WinNT (I have only seen these in gov facilities)
WinXP (We know it we love it.)
== Both used but Xp more common since more secure, and eventually NT was phased out nd replaced by XP anyway
...

Actually, Windows 3.0 version lasted fewer than its successor, Windows 3.1, which was replaced by Windows 3.11 for workgroups version, the longest survivor for 3.x series, due to network capabilities and support for 32bits applications, via an add-on (win32s)... this was at the end of 80s and beg. of 90s.
On the other hand, Windows 95, especially second update from '96 (Windows 95 OSR2), had even more success, because fully replaced MS-DOS (Windows 3.x series depended on it) and had a better GUI ... only second update (ed.) of Windows 98 (Windows 98 SE) was at same level of popularity on workstations; losers were Windows NT 4.0 workstation and ME (Millenium Ed.) ... and later Vista...
A good word for Windows 2000 Pro. which had a re-written ver.4 kernel version (code name NT 5.0), much more stable (with a total of 4 service packs) and less vulnerable than Win 95/98, even than Windows XP for a while (remember XP online vulnerabilities until SP2 ?). Windows 2000 professional was the base for next generation 32bits kernels (code name NT 5.1, 6.0) used by Windows XP, Windows 2000 server and Windows 2003 server.

For servers, Windows NT 4.0 server version lasted for many yrs. as much as Windows 2003, because had better functionality than Windows NT 3.5/3.51 server and same interface as Windows 95 ... and was trully beaten only by 2003 server, not by 2000 server (2000 server was the big loser).

I know all these versions because I grew up with them (I grew up also with linux kernel versions 1.2, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, but that's another story)

sratakhin

I never undestood why so many people hate Windows ME. When I was a kid, I used Windows 95. Then multibooted 98, ME, 2000 and Linux on the same machine. My parents could only use 98 as their software didn't work on other systems. I used 2000 for work and ME for games. Linux - just played with it.
Then came XP, which I started using when the SP2 came out. Only used Vista for half an hour. And of course, used Windows 7 since it's pre-release. Still on 7, because I don't see a reason to upgrade. But the new Server 2012 is pretty good.
Also, to this day I still see computers with Windows 2000 Server. No more Workstations though.


To OP: Do the 70-680 exam first. Then follow up with 685 or 686 depending on what you want to do. MCSA in Windows 7 will give you an opportunity to find an entry-level desktop technician position. Then you can upgrade to Windows 8 (I think it's only one exam).

marco71

sratakhin wrote: »

I never undestood why so many people hate Windows ME. ...

because was first Windows version which has implemented recovery via restore points; but implementation was so bad that mostly restores ended in a messed, broken O.S. and the only remaining solution was to re-install the O.S.