MCSA Question

Megadeth4168

Should I go for my MCSA 2000 then upgrade to 2003 or just go for 2003?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Cessation

Megadeth4168 wrote:

Should I go for my MCSA 2000 then upgrade to 2003 or just go for 2003?

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

Megadeth4168

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....

Danman32

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.

bighornsheep

Megadeth4168 wrote:

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.

Cheers!

blargoe

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.

Megadeth4168

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!

Danman32

Well, I could see that having both 2000 and 2003 won't matter much, but more future employers would be looking for 2003 over 2000.

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.

TheShadow

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.

Megadeth4168

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...

sprkymrk

Megadeth4168 wrote:

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.

iloco808

which platform are you more familiar with?

sprkymrk

iloco808 wrote:

which platform are you more familiar with?

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.

Megadeth4168

iloco808 wrote:

which platform are you more familiar with?

I know I'm far more familiar with the 2000 platform.

!30

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 !

LukeQuake

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

Danman32

!30 wrote:

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.