«

I know this question is asked many times. My situation
is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
office network, no formal education (self taught). We
are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
appreciated.

yes, sounds good. can you post your pic?


"Janet" <> wrote in message
news:191a701c41c17$97743f20$...
> I know this question is asked many times. My situation
> is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
> office network, no formal education (self taught). We
> are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
> NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
> Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
> 2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
> appreciated.

You'll eventually have to get 2003, so...
"Janet" <> wrote in message
news:191a701c41c17$97743f20$...
> I know this question is asked many times. My situation
> is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
> office network, no formal education (self taught). We
> are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
> NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
> Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
> 2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
> appreciated.

Give up, you will never work in IT above help desk.


>-----Original Message-----
>yes, sounds good. can you post your pic?
>
>
>"Janet" <> wrote in
message
>news:191a701c41c17$97743f20$...
>> I know this question is asked many times. My situation
>> is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
>> office network, no formal education (self taught). We
>> are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
>> NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
>> Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
>> 2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
>> appreciated.
>
>
>.
>

Would you be willing to sell your psychic antennae?

--
I may not be fully certified, but I am fully certifiable.

"Give up" <> wrote in message
news:14a9b01c41c27$97169b80$...
> Give up, you will never work in IT above help desk.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >yes, sounds good. can you post your pic?
> >
> >
> >"Janet" <> wrote in
> message
> >news:191a701c41c17$97743f20$...
> >> I know this question is asked many times. My situation
> >> is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
> >> office network, no formal education (self taught). We
> >> are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
> >> NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
> >> Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
> >> 2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
> >> appreciated.
> >
> >
> >.
> >

I whole heartedly suggest 2003, otherwise you are
certifying in technology that is already 4 years old and
is already out of date. You will be able to apply the
knowledge from the 2003 track to a 2000 network anyway.
Also, if you want to continue to MCSE 2003 further down
the track, you are already 1/2 way there.
Hope this helps.

>-----Original Message-----
>I know this question is asked many times. My situation
>is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
>office network, no formal education (self taught). We
>are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
>NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
>Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
>2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
>appreciated.
>.
>

"Kate" <> wrote in news:1942401c41c40
$c7f76360$:

> I whole heartedly suggest 2003, otherwise you are
> certifying in technology that is already 4 years old and
> is already out of date. You will be able to apply the
> knowledge from the 2003 track to a 2000 network anyway.
> Also, if you want to continue to MCSE 2003 further down
> the track, you are already 1/2 way there.
> Hope this helps.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>I know this question is asked many times. My situation
>>is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
>>office network, no formal education (self taught). We
>>are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
>>NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
>>Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
>>2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
>>appreciated.
>>.
>>
>

I don't neccessarily agree with Kate. you know 2000. the difference
between MCSA 2000 and MCSA 2003 is 1 exam. but there is very little
difference between 2 tracks so, from my stand point its a coin toss. Go
with which ever you think will benefit you...

--
Neil
"you'd do what, to who, for how many biscuits?"

I took the 2000 track.
I figure what the hell, I'll upgrade if I need to when the exams are free
(ala NT)
All of my school material (a few hundred bucks worth of books) is 2k, I
didn't want that to go to waste.
I would have taken the 2003 exams with the 2000 material, but that just
seems.. stupid..

"Kate" <> wrote in message
news:1942401c41c40$c7f76360$...
> I whole heartedly suggest 2003, otherwise you are
> certifying in technology that is already 4 years old and
> is already out of date. You will be able to apply the
> knowledge from the 2003 track to a 2000 network anyway.
> Also, if you want to continue to MCSE 2003 further down
> the track, you are already 1/2 way there.
> Hope this helps.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I know this question is asked many times. My situation
> >is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
> >office network, no formal education (self taught). We
> >are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
> >NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade to
> >Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
> >2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
> >appreciated.
> >.
> >

I appreciate all your comments and I respect all of
them. I will go with 2003 based on being most current
and also realizing that the managing I did on 2000 was
all self taught. I figure actually learning it/knowing
it... would be more of an asset to the company. I hope
this doesn't make too many people ill!
Thanks greatly, and any comments are very welcome...
Janet

>-----Original Message-----
>You'll eventually have to get 2003, so...
>"Janet" <> wrote in
message
>news:191a701c41c17$97743f20$...
>> I know this question is asked many times. My situation
>> is 6 years managing NT Server & 2000 Server for a small
>> office network, no formal education (self taught). We
>> are currently running Server 2000 and workstations
>> NT/2000 and XP Pro. We will more than likely upgrade
to
>> Server 2003 this year. I am pretty convinced that MCSA
>> 2003 is the better choice for me. Any comments are
>> appreciated.
>
>
>.
>

Hello Neil,

Thank you for your reply... It is indeed a coin toss,
but givin the fact that I don't have my MCSA 2000, I feel
I should start overwise and I am looking for confirm.
And by the way did you notice some real strange ones
about!...
Janet


>I don't neccessarily agree with Kate. you know 2000. the
difference
>between MCSA 2000 and MCSA 2003 is 1 exam. but there is
very little
>difference between 2 tracks so, from my stand point its
a coin toss. Go
>with which ever you think will benefit you...
>
>--
>Neil
>"you'd do what, to who, for how many biscuits?"
>.
>