Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   MCSA (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f50-mcsa.html)
-   -   Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t657704-distilled-wisdom-2000-or-2003-xp-for-new-mcp.html)

Dev Lunsford 09-08-2003 10:38 AM

Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
Given that the newer 2003Server/XP qualification will last longer, should I
take that instead of the Windows 2000 exams? I haven't got much experience
of XP, though, so is it better to go with what you know or try to upgrade
your knowledge and go for the new? I've been trying to work out the best
way for a while and can't decide which is the better choice. Any advice
would be much appreciated.

Cool, now I'll leave you alone and stop posting everywhere at once. Thanks
for all the advice I've already picked up from you all, and good luck.

-dev...



SteveC 09-08-2003 12:49 PM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
I don't understand your logic - 2003Server/XP qualification will last
longer.? The 2000 cert lasts forever, as does 2003. It's true to say, that
2000 may become less widely deployed, but I think corporations will still be
using it for many years to come, as they are NT. It might even be that many
corporations don't bother upgrading to 2003, and when that is superceded -
it won't have achieved as wide a deployment as 2000.

Personally, I would do the 2000 exams, you can always upgrade later.

Steve.
"Dev Lunsford" <lefrinj@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:aYY6b.73$AI2.22@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Given that the newer 2003Server/XP qualification will last longer, should

I
> take that instead of the Windows 2000 exams? I haven't got much

experience
> of XP, though, so is it better to go with what you know or try to upgrade
> your knowledge and go for the new? I've been trying to work out the best
> way for a while and can't decide which is the better choice. Any advice
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Cool, now I'll leave you alone and stop posting everywhere at once.

Thanks
> for all the advice I've already picked up from you all, and good luck.
>
> -dev...
>
>




Dev Lunsford 09-09-2003 10:37 AM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
> I don't understand your logic - 2003Server/XP qualification will last
> longer.? The 2000 cert lasts forever, as does 2003.


But if I get the 2000 cert, I'll have to upgrade it a lot sooner, right?
That's what I meant.

> It's true to say, that 2000 may become less widely deployed, but I think

corporations will still > be using it for many years to come, as they are
NT. It might even be that many
> corporations don't bother upgrading to 2003, and when that is superceded -
> it won't have achieved as wide a deployment as 2000.


Exactly what's causing me to hold to the 2000 track - I think that 2000
would be more useful right now, for actually knowing the stuff that I'll be
using on a day to day basis, but if the 2000 exams get phased out and I have
to update, say before I've even got the MCSA, I feel like I'll have wasted
time and money when I could just have taken the newer exams.

> Personally, I would do the 2000 exams, you can always upgrade later.


OK. Thanks for your advice.



SteveC 09-09-2003 11:40 AM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
I hear what you're saying, but as far as I know, Microsoft has no plans to
retire the 2000 exams yet. I imagine you have a good couple of years to
achieve your MCSA/MCSE. If that isn't long enough, and I know it isn't for
some people due to other commitments, then maybe you could do your 2003
instead. But, my advice would still be to do the 2000.

Cheers, Steve.
"Dev Lunsford" <lefrinj@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:a1i7b.160$lj5.116102@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > I don't understand your logic - 2003Server/XP qualification will last
> > longer.? The 2000 cert lasts forever, as does 2003.

>
> But if I get the 2000 cert, I'll have to upgrade it a lot sooner, right?
> That's what I meant.
>
> > It's true to say, that 2000 may become less widely deployed, but I think

> corporations will still > be using it for many years to come, as they are
> NT. It might even be that many
> > corporations don't bother upgrading to 2003, and when that is

superceded -
> > it won't have achieved as wide a deployment as 2000.

>
> Exactly what's causing me to hold to the 2000 track - I think that 2000
> would be more useful right now, for actually knowing the stuff that I'll

be
> using on a day to day basis, but if the 2000 exams get phased out and I

have
> to update, say before I've even got the MCSA, I feel like I'll have wasted
> time and money when I could just have taken the newer exams.
>
> > Personally, I would do the 2000 exams, you can always upgrade later.

>
> OK. Thanks for your advice.
>
>




Maestro 09-09-2003 05:36 PM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
The logical thing to do would be to get certified on W2K.
Because Microsoft has released W2K3 does not mean that the
industry is going to go that direction. NT4 is a prime
example, there have been two new releases and NT4 still
has a strong standing in the industry. Even if there is a
requirement/desire to upgrade later it only takes two test
to upgrade at which time you will be certified on two
platforms. This not only looks more impressive on your
resume, but it also shows potential employers that you're
actively keeping up with the latest technology.
Ultimately you should go that route that is going to offer
the best return for you. Is your company running W2K, but
planning to upgrade to W2K3? How will your skillset
affect productivity/profits?

>-----Original Message-----
>> I don't understand your logic - 2003Server/XP

qualification will last
>> longer.? The 2000 cert lasts forever, as does 2003.

>
>But if I get the 2000 cert, I'll have to upgrade it a lot

sooner, right?
>That's what I meant.
>
>> It's true to say, that 2000 may become less widely

deployed, but I think
>corporations will still > be using it for many years to

come, as they are
>NT. It might even be that many
>> corporations don't bother upgrading to 2003, and when

that is superceded -
>> it won't have achieved as wide a deployment as 2000.

>
>Exactly what's causing me to hold to the 2000 track - I

think that 2000
>would be more useful right now, for actually knowing the

stuff that I'll be
>using on a day to day basis, but if the 2000 exams get

phased out and I have
>to update, say before I've even got the MCSA, I feel like

I'll have wasted
>time and money when I could just have taken the newer

exams.
>
>> Personally, I would do the 2000 exams, you can always

upgrade later.
>
> OK. Thanks for your advice.
>
>
>.
>


SteveC 09-10-2003 10:12 AM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
Which is more or less what I said.....
"Maestro" <maestro@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:09b501c376f8$f10a0ac0$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> The logical thing to do would be to get certified on W2K.
> Because Microsoft has released W2K3 does not mean that the
> industry is going to go that direction. NT4 is a prime
> example, there have been two new releases and NT4 still
> has a strong standing in the industry. Even if there is a
> requirement/desire to upgrade later it only takes two test
> to upgrade at which time you will be certified on two
> platforms. This not only looks more impressive on your
> resume, but it also shows potential employers that you're
> actively keeping up with the latest technology.
> Ultimately you should go that route that is going to offer
> the best return for you. Is your company running W2K, but
> planning to upgrade to W2K3? How will your skillset
> affect productivity/profits?
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >> I don't understand your logic - 2003Server/XP

> qualification will last
> >> longer.? The 2000 cert lasts forever, as does 2003.

> >
> >But if I get the 2000 cert, I'll have to upgrade it a lot

> sooner, right?
> >That's what I meant.
> >
> >> It's true to say, that 2000 may become less widely

> deployed, but I think
> >corporations will still > be using it for many years to

> come, as they are
> >NT. It might even be that many
> >> corporations don't bother upgrading to 2003, and when

> that is superceded -
> >> it won't have achieved as wide a deployment as 2000.

> >
> >Exactly what's causing me to hold to the 2000 track - I

> think that 2000
> >would be more useful right now, for actually knowing the

> stuff that I'll be
> >using on a day to day basis, but if the 2000 exams get

> phased out and I have
> >to update, say before I've even got the MCSA, I feel like

> I'll have wasted
> >time and money when I could just have taken the newer

> exams.
> >
> >> Personally, I would do the 2000 exams, you can always

> upgrade later.
> >
> > OK. Thanks for your advice.
> >
> >
> >.
> >




Dev Lunsford 09-11-2003 08:53 AM

Re: Distilled wisdom - 2000 or 2003/xp for new MCP?
 
> >Which is more or less what I said.....

> True, I wasn't trying to contradict your response. I was
> only trying to offer some amplifying information. That is
> OK... isn't it?


To me, if 2 people agree, I know it's not just some kook with some funny
ideas. That might sound rough, but you never know ;-) . This way, I'm
happier that I'm getting good advice.

Thanks to all
-dev...




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.