MCSE 2000 - Available For How Much Longer?

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by Clint Kennedy, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000 exams
    being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed 70-210
    and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam every
    month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of it),
    then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it will be
    fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB elective
    course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to be
    quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the tests as
    they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000 and will
    be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me time to
    complete it.

    It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago. I've
    worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years, and now
    have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed certification,
    it's purely a personal goal.

    --

    Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
     
    Clint Kennedy, Jul 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. We have no plans to retire them at this time. Keep plugging away!

    --
    Andy Ruth
    Microsoft Training and Certification

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights.

    "Clint Kennedy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000

    exams
    > being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed 70-210
    > and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam

    every
    > month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of it),
    > then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it will be
    > fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB

    elective
    > course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to be
    > quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the tests

    as
    > they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000 and

    will
    > be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me time to
    > complete it.
    >
    > It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago. I've
    > worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years, and

    now
    > have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed

    certification,
    > it's purely a personal goal.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    >
    >
     
    Andy Ruth [MS], Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Or better yet, if they are chosen to be retired at some future point in
    time, what will be the notice time period before the exam expires? 6
    months? a year? What is policy?

    Clint

    "Andy Ruth [MS]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > We have no plans to retire them at this time. Keep plugging away!
    >
    > --
    > Andy Ruth
    > Microsoft Training and Certification
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.
    >
    > "Clint Kennedy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000

    > exams
    > > being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed

    70-210
    > > and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam

    > every
    > > month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of

    it),
    > > then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it will

    be
    > > fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB

    > elective
    > > course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to be
    > > quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the

    tests
    > as
    > > they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000 and

    > will
    > > be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me time

    to
    > > complete it.
    > >
    > > It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago. I've
    > > worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years, and

    > now
    > > have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed

    > certification,
    > > it's purely a personal goal.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Clint Kennedy, Jul 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Clint Kennedy

    booby orr Guest

    hi clint, some say you should just skip w2k and go stright to w2k3 cert's.

    if you do it your way, after you get your w2k MCSE, you will have to
    take 2 more exams to become w2k3 certified. i.e. it's going to cost you
    9 exams to become w2k3 certified as opposed to doing the w2k3 cert path
    and costing you 7 exams.

    below are some links that might help.
    http://www.microsoft.com/Traincert/mcp/mcse/windows2003/upgrade.asp
    http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/mcse/requirements.asp
    http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/mcse/windows2003/




    Clint Kennedy wrote:
    > I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000 exams
    > being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed 70-210
    > and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam every
    > month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of it),
    > then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it will be
    > fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB elective
    > course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to be
    > quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the tests as
    > they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000 and will
    > be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me time to
    > complete it.
    >
    > It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago. I've
    > worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years, and now
    > have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed certification,
    > it's purely a personal goal.
    >
     
    booby orr, Jul 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Take a look here:
    http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcpexams/status/retired.asp

    --
    Tom Helms


    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    "Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for
    newsgroup purposes only."


    "Clint Kennedy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Or better yet, if they are chosen to be retired at some future point in
    > time, what will be the notice time period before the exam expires? 6
    > months? a year? What is policy?
    >
    > Clint
    >
    > "Andy Ruth [MS]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > We have no plans to retire them at this time. Keep plugging away!
    > >
    > > --
    > > Andy Ruth
    > > Microsoft Training and Certification
    > >
    > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > > rights.
    > >
    > > "Clint Kennedy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000

    > > exams
    > > > being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed

    > 70-210
    > > > and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam

    > > every
    > > > month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of

    > it),
    > > > then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it

    will
    > be
    > > > fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB

    > > elective
    > > > course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to

    be
    > > > quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the

    > tests
    > > as
    > > > they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000

    and
    > > will
    > > > be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me

    time
    > to
    > > > complete it.
    > > >
    > > > It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago.

    I've
    > > > worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years,

    and
    > > now
    > > > have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed

    > > certification,
    > > > it's purely a personal goal.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > >
    > > > Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Tom Helms [MSFT], Jul 30, 2003
    #5
  6. That is true, but along the way you are proving that you have the skills
    needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as a Windows Server
    2003 environment. What environment you are working in (or want to work in)
    should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on Windows 2000 now and
    work in that environment, then when they plan to go to Windows Server 2003
    or you want to join a company that is using Windows Server 2003, you can
    bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple upgrade path to the
    certification. If you are currently working in a Windows Server 2003
    environment or want to work in that environment, then start with Windows
    Server 2003 certification is the way to go.

    --
    Andy Ruth
    Microsoft Training and Certification

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights.

    "booby orr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hi clint, some say you should just skip w2k and go stright to w2k3 cert's.
    >
    > if you do it your way, after you get your w2k MCSE, you will have to
    > take 2 more exams to become w2k3 certified. i.e. it's going to cost you
    > 9 exams to become w2k3 certified as opposed to doing the w2k3 cert path
    > and costing you 7 exams.
    >
    > below are some links that might help.
    > http://www.microsoft.com/Traincert/mcp/mcse/windows2003/upgrade.asp
    > http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/mcse/requirements.asp
    > http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/mcse/windows2003/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Clint Kennedy wrote:
    > > I haven't personally read anything on MS's website regarding the 2000

    exams
    > > being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have only passed

    70-210
    > > and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass about 1 exam

    every
    > > month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for the heck of

    it),
    > > then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both exams, it will

    be
    > > fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course and a DB

    elective
    > > course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA. It's going to be
    > > quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and they pull the

    tests as
    > > they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are using 2000 and

    will
    > > be for some time this won't happen within the next year, giving me time

    to
    > > complete it.
    > >
    > > It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this years ago. I've
    > > worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for several years, and

    now
    > > have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never needed

    certification,
    > > it's purely a personal goal.
    > >

    >
     
    Andy Ruth [MS], Jul 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Clint Kennedy

    Maestro Guest

    Microsoft generally gives more than ample notice when they
    plan to retire an "exam". With NT4 they gave at least a
    years heads up, and by the way anyone certified on 4.0 is
    still an MCSE. Microsoft is just not making any new MCSEs
    on NT4. Now it's either W2k or W2K3. With that said W2k
    has several years left on it's life cycle. Even if you're
    only certifying for personal gain it still makes sense to
    certify in an area that will be most useful to "you". If
    it's W2k you're still safe for now and worst case scenario
    will only require two upgrade exams to be certified on
    W2K3.

    There are quite a few posters here that are only concerned
    with how fast they can certify, what's the easiest path to
    certification, or what combination of test will give them
    the max number of certs. My opinion is to go with what
    you think you can get the most return out of i.e. is your
    company working with a specific product now or does it
    plans to upgrade in the near future, etc...?

    >-----Original Message-----
    >I haven't personally read anything on MS's website

    regarding the 2000 exams
    >being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have

    only passed 70-210
    >and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and pass

    about 1 exam every
    >month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+ (for

    the heck of it),
    >then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on both

    exams, it will be
    >fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design course

    and a DB elective
    >course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA.

    It's going to be
    >quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and

    they pull the tests as
    >they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers are

    using 2000 and will
    >be for some time this won't happen within the next year,

    giving me time to
    >complete it.
    >
    >It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this

    years ago. I've
    >worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for

    several years, and now
    >have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never

    needed certification,
    >it's purely a personal goal.
    >
    >--
    >
    >Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    Maestro, Jul 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Clint Kennedy

    booby orr Guest

    andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest" on this ng.

    w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k. it's an
    improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies that have
    already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and active directory
    will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt. all the admin's i
    have talked to are drooling over the updated AD management tools in
    w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a AD aren't
    going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to w2k3.

    so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?

    Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    > That is true, but along the way you are proving that you have the skills
    > needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as a Windows Server
    > 2003 environment. What environment you are working in (or want to work in)
    > should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on Windows 2000 now and
    > work in that environment, then when they plan to go to Windows Server 2003
    > or you want to join a company that is using Windows Server 2003, you can
    > bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple upgrade path to the
    > certification. If you are currently working in a Windows Server 2003
    > environment or want to work in that environment, then start with Windows
    > Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    >
     
    booby orr, Jul 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Clint Kennedy

    Maestro Guest

    Of all the companies out there running one or more of the
    various versions of windows, how many do you have first
    hand knowledge of to support your statements? What
    stastistical data do you have to support your statements?
    Because you know a few people that work for companies that
    are going that route in know way makes it universally true
    as you present it. Except for the few companies at the
    top of the food chain with endless budgets, I'm inclined
    to believe that most will resist change. Yes there are
    some companies migrting to W2K3, but "I believe" the
    number doing so is statistically insignificant (at least
    for now).

    >-----Original Message-----
    >andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest"

    on this ng.
    >
    >w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k.

    it's an
    >improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies

    that have
    >already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and

    active directory
    >will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt.

    all the admin's i
    >have talked to are drooling over the updated AD

    management tools in
    >w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a

    AD aren't
    >going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to

    w2k3.
    >
    >so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    >
    >Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    >> That is true, but along the way you are proving that

    you have the skills
    >> needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as

    a Windows Server
    >> 2003 environment. What environment you are working in

    (or want to work in)
    >> should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on

    Windows 2000 now and
    >> work in that environment, then when they plan to go to

    Windows Server 2003
    >> or you want to join a company that is using Windows

    Server 2003, you can
    >> bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple

    upgrade path to the
    >> certification. If you are currently working in a

    Windows Server 2003
    >> environment or want to work in that environment, then

    start with Windows
    >> Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    >>

    >
    >.
    >
     
    Maestro, Jul 30, 2003
    #9
  10. I have to agree. When I worked as a Network Consultant I still had SEVERAL
    clients running (to this day) Netware 3.1 simply because it "does everything
    we need" and they don't want to shell out money for an unneeded upgrade. I
    think the only people that will rush to upgrade to 2003 are those still
    stuck on NT 4.0 server.

    Clint

    "Maestro" <> wrote in message
    news:03e401c356ea$52874a80$...
    > Of all the companies out there running one or more of the
    > various versions of windows, how many do you have first
    > hand knowledge of to support your statements? What
    > stastistical data do you have to support your statements?
    > Because you know a few people that work for companies that
    > are going that route in know way makes it universally true
    > as you present it. Except for the few companies at the
    > top of the food chain with endless budgets, I'm inclined
    > to believe that most will resist change. Yes there are
    > some companies migrting to W2K3, but "I believe" the
    > number doing so is statistically insignificant (at least
    > for now).
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest"

    > on this ng.
    > >
    > >w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k.

    > it's an
    > >improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies

    > that have
    > >already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and

    > active directory
    > >will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt.

    > all the admin's i
    > >have talked to are drooling over the updated AD

    > management tools in
    > >w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a

    > AD aren't
    > >going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to

    > w2k3.
    > >
    > >so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    > >
    > >Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    > >> That is true, but along the way you are proving that

    > you have the skills
    > >> needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as

    > a Windows Server
    > >> 2003 environment. What environment you are working in

    > (or want to work in)
    > >> should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on

    > Windows 2000 now and
    > >> work in that environment, then when they plan to go to

    > Windows Server 2003
    > >> or you want to join a company that is using Windows

    > Server 2003, you can
    > >> bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple

    > upgrade path to the
    > >> certification. If you are currently working in a

    > Windows Server 2003
    > >> environment or want to work in that environment, then

    > start with Windows
    > >> Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    > >>

    > >
    > >.
    > >
     
    Clint Kennedy, Jul 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Clint Kennedy

    billyw Guest

    there are companies that are just starting to migrate to 2k.
    As with most things that are biz critical companies like to make sure it is
    rock solid, so sometimes it pays to be a generation behind the curve.
    Nothing worse than being an unpaid beta site
    So basically i dont agree with the idea that all these companies are going
    to fire out and buy 2k3. also given the economy..

    "Maestro" <> wrote in message
    news:03e401c356ea$52874a80$...
    > Of all the companies out there running one or more of the
    > various versions of windows, how many do you have first
    > hand knowledge of to support your statements? What
    > stastistical data do you have to support your statements?
    > Because you know a few people that work for companies that
    > are going that route in know way makes it universally true
    > as you present it. Except for the few companies at the
    > top of the food chain with endless budgets, I'm inclined
    > to believe that most will resist change. Yes there are
    > some companies migrting to W2K3, but "I believe" the
    > number doing so is statistically insignificant (at least
    > for now).
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest"

    > on this ng.
    > >
    > >w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k.

    > it's an
    > >improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies

    > that have
    > >already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and

    > active directory
    > >will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt.

    > all the admin's i
    > >have talked to are drooling over the updated AD

    > management tools in
    > >w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a

    > AD aren't
    > >going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to

    > w2k3.
    > >
    > >so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    > >
    > >Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    > >> That is true, but along the way you are proving that

    > you have the skills
    > >> needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as

    > a Windows Server
    > >> 2003 environment. What environment you are working in

    > (or want to work in)
    > >> should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on

    > Windows 2000 now and
    > >> work in that environment, then when they plan to go to

    > Windows Server 2003
    > >> or you want to join a company that is using Windows

    > Server 2003, you can
    > >> bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple

    > upgrade path to the
    > >> certification. If you are currently working in a

    > Windows Server 2003
    > >> environment or want to work in that environment, then

    > start with Windows
    > >> Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    > >>

    > >
    > >.
    > >
     
    billyw, Jul 31, 2003
    #11
  12. Clint Kennedy

    majeters Guest

    I am training for mcse for 2000 and how I wish I had NT4
    training as well.NT4 is still big in the field from my
    limited exp. and would love to learn it
    >-----Original Message-----
    >Microsoft generally gives more than ample notice when

    they
    >plan to retire an "exam". With NT4 they gave at least a
    >years heads up, and by the way anyone certified on 4.0

    is
    >still an MCSE. Microsoft is just not making any new

    MCSEs
    >on NT4. Now it's either W2k or W2K3. With that said

    W2k
    >has several years left on it's life cycle. Even if

    you're
    >only certifying for personal gain it still makes sense

    to
    >certify in an area that will be most useful to "you".

    If
    >it's W2k you're still safe for now and worst case

    scenario
    >will only require two upgrade exams to be certified on
    >W2K3.
    >
    >There are quite a few posters here that are only

    concerned
    >with how fast they can certify, what's the easiest path

    to
    >certification, or what combination of test will give

    them
    >the max number of certs. My opinion is to go with what
    >you think you can get the most return out of i.e. is

    your
    >company working with a specific product now or does it
    >plans to upgrade in the near future, etc...?
    >
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>I haven't personally read anything on MS's website

    >regarding the 2000 exams
    >>being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have

    >only passed 70-210
    >>and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and

    pass
    >about 1 exam every
    >>month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+

    (for
    >the heck of it),
    >>then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on

    both
    >exams, it will be
    >>fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design

    course
    >and a DB elective
    >>course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA.

    >It's going to be
    >>quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and

    >they pull the tests as
    >>they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers

    are
    >using 2000 and will
    >>be for some time this won't happen within the next

    year,
    >giving me time to
    >>complete it.
    >>
    >>It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this

    >years ago. I've
    >>worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for

    >several years, and now
    >>have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never

    >needed certification,
    >>it's purely a personal goal.
    >>
    >>--
    >>
    >>Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    >>
    >>
    >>.
    >>

    >.
    >
     
    majeters, Jul 31, 2003
    #12
  13. Clint Kennedy

    billyw Guest

    get a copy of the software and play with it

    "majeters" <> wrote in message
    news:082d01c35724$3e484a30$...
    > I am training for mcse for 2000 and how I wish I had NT4
    > training as well.NT4 is still big in the field from my
    > limited exp. and would love to learn it
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >Microsoft generally gives more than ample notice when

    > they
    > >plan to retire an "exam". With NT4 they gave at least a
    > >years heads up, and by the way anyone certified on 4.0

    > is
    > >still an MCSE. Microsoft is just not making any new

    > MCSEs
    > >on NT4. Now it's either W2k or W2K3. With that said

    > W2k
    > >has several years left on it's life cycle. Even if

    > you're
    > >only certifying for personal gain it still makes sense

    > to
    > >certify in an area that will be most useful to "you".

    > If
    > >it's W2k you're still safe for now and worst case

    > scenario
    > >will only require two upgrade exams to be certified on
    > >W2K3.
    > >
    > >There are quite a few posters here that are only

    > concerned
    > >with how fast they can certify, what's the easiest path

    > to
    > >certification, or what combination of test will give

    > them
    > >the max number of certs. My opinion is to go with what
    > >you think you can get the most return out of i.e. is

    > your
    > >company working with a specific product now or does it
    > >plans to upgrade in the near future, etc...?
    > >
    > >>-----Original Message-----
    > >>I haven't personally read anything on MS's website

    > >regarding the 2000 exams
    > >>being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have

    > >only passed 70-210
    > >>and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and

    > pass
    > >about 1 exam every
    > >>month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+

    > (for
    > >the heck of it),
    > >>then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on

    > both
    > >exams, it will be
    > >>fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design

    > course
    > >and a DB elective
    > >>course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA.

    > >It's going to be
    > >>quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and

    > >they pull the tests as
    > >>they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers

    > are
    > >using 2000 and will
    > >>be for some time this won't happen within the next

    > year,
    > >giving me time to
    > >>complete it.
    > >>
    > >>It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this

    > >years ago. I've
    > >>worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for

    > >several years, and now
    > >>have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never

    > >needed certification,
    > >>it's purely a personal goal.
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>
    > >>Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>.
    > >>

    > >.
    > >
     
    billyw, Jul 31, 2003
    #13
  14. Clint Kennedy

    booby orr Guest

    i am not talking about companies running netware, nt4 or any unix
    flavored networked environments. i am talking about the companies that
    have already made the plunge into windows 2000 and ARE using Active
    Directory an their network environment.

    if you are planning on getting your w2k mcse - you must be wanting to
    get a job or "better job" working in a place that is using a w2k
    environment. places that have made (or are about to) switch over to w2k
    are probably using active directory (AD). w2k3 is being touted by ms as
    the upgrade to get if you are managing AD because there are a lot of
    frusturations with the management tools for managing AD objects that are
    offered with w2k. ms have answered to those needs with the w2k3 release.
    that's why i think going straight to w2k3 msce is going to be a better
    cert. for making you more marketable on the workplace. w2k3 is not a
    "brand new" os product. it's a continuation and improvement upon the w2k os.

    don't forget, it's going to take you at least 6 months to a year to get
    your mcse. think where companies are going to be in 2004/2005 - not
    where they are now.




    Clint Kennedy wrote:
    > I have to agree. When I worked as a Network Consultant I still had SEVERAL
    > clients running (to this day) Netware 3.1 simply because it "does everything
    > we need" and they don't want to shell out money for an unneeded upgrade. I
    > think the only people that will rush to upgrade to 2003 are those still
    > stuck on NT 4.0 server.
    >
    > Clint
    >
    > "Maestro" <> wrote in message
    > news:03e401c356ea$52874a80$...
    >
    >>Of all the companies out there running one or more of the
    >>various versions of windows, how many do you have first
    >>hand knowledge of to support your statements? What
    >>stastistical data do you have to support your statements?
    >>Because you know a few people that work for companies that
    >>are going that route in know way makes it universally true
    >>as you present it. Except for the few companies at the
    >>top of the food chain with endless budgets, I'm inclined
    >>to believe that most will resist change. Yes there are
    >>some companies migrting to W2K3, but "I believe" the
    >>number doing so is statistically insignificant (at least
    >>for now).
    >>
    >>
    >>>-----Original Message-----
    >>>andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest"

    >>
    >>on this ng.
    >>
    >>>w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k.

    >>
    >>it's an
    >>
    >>>improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies

    >>
    >>that have
    >>
    >>>already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and

    >>
    >>active directory
    >>
    >>>will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt.

    >>
    >>all the admin's i
    >>
    >>>have talked to are drooling over the updated AD

    >>
    >>management tools in
    >>
    >>>w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a

    >>
    >>AD aren't
    >>
    >>>going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to

    >>
    >>w2k3.
    >>
    >>>so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    >>>
    >>>Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>That is true, but along the way you are proving that
    >>>

    >>you have the skills
    >>
    >>>>needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as
    >>>

    >>a Windows Server
    >>
    >>>>2003 environment. What environment you are working in
    >>>

    >>(or want to work in)
    >>
    >>>>should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on
    >>>

    >>Windows 2000 now and
    >>
    >>>>work in that environment, then when they plan to go to
    >>>

    >>Windows Server 2003
    >>
    >>>>or you want to join a company that is using Windows
    >>>

    >>Server 2003, you can
    >>
    >>>>bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple
    >>>

    >>upgrade path to the
    >>
    >>>>certification. If you are currently working in a
    >>>

    >>Windows Server 2003
    >>
    >>>>environment or want to work in that environment, then
    >>>

    >>start with Windows
    >>
    >>>>Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>.
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    booby orr, Jul 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Clint Kennedy

    booby orr Guest

    also, just so no one thinks i am a ms "addict". my network is 80%
    netware and 20% w2k.




    booby orr wrote:
    > i am not talking about companies running netware, nt4 or any unix
    > flavored networked environments. i am talking about the companies that
    > have already made the plunge into windows 2000 and ARE using Active
    > Directory an their network environment.
    >
    > if you are planning on getting your w2k mcse - you must be wanting to
    > get a job or "better job" working in a place that is using a w2k
    > environment. places that have made (or are about to) switch over to w2k
    > are probably using active directory (AD). w2k3 is being touted by ms as
    > the upgrade to get if you are managing AD because there are a lot of
    > frusturations with the management tools for managing AD objects that are
    > offered with w2k. ms have answered to those needs with the w2k3 release.
    > that's why i think going straight to w2k3 msce is going to be a better
    > cert. for making you more marketable on the workplace. w2k3 is not a
    > "brand new" os product. it's a continuation and improvement upon the w2k
    > os.
    >
    > don't forget, it's going to take you at least 6 months to a year to get
    > your mcse. think where companies are going to be in 2004/2005 - not
    > where they are now.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Clint Kennedy wrote:
    >
    >> I have to agree. When I worked as a Network Consultant I still had
    >> SEVERAL
    >> clients running (to this day) Netware 3.1 simply because it "does
    >> everything
    >> we need" and they don't want to shell out money for an unneeded
    >> upgrade. I
    >> think the only people that will rush to upgrade to 2003 are those still
    >> stuck on NT 4.0 server.
    >>
    >> Clint
    >>
    >> "Maestro" <> wrote in message
    >> news:03e401c356ea$52874a80$...
    >>
    >>> Of all the companies out there running one or more of the
    >>> various versions of windows, how many do you have first
    >>> hand knowledge of to support your statements? What
    >>> stastistical data do you have to support your statements?
    >>> Because you know a few people that work for companies that
    >>> are going that route in know way makes it universally true
    >>> as you present it. Except for the few companies at the
    >>> top of the food chain with endless budgets, I'm inclined
    >>> to believe that most will resist change. Yes there are
    >>> some companies migrting to W2K3, but "I believe" the
    >>> number doing so is statistically insignificant (at least
    >>> for now).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>> andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> on this ng.
    >>>
    >>>> w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> it's an
    >>>
    >>>> improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> that have
    >>>
    >>>> already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> active directory
    >>>
    >>>> will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> all the admin's i
    >>>
    >>>> have talked to are drooling over the updated AD
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> management tools in
    >>>
    >>>> w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> AD aren't
    >>>
    >>>> going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> w2k3.
    >>>
    >>>> so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    >>>>
    >>>> Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> That is true, but along the way you are proving that
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> you have the skills
    >>>
    >>>>> needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> a Windows Server
    >>>
    >>>>> 2003 environment. What environment you are working in
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> (or want to work in)
    >>>
    >>>>> should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Windows 2000 now and
    >>>
    >>>>> work in that environment, then when they plan to go to
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Windows Server 2003
    >>>
    >>>>> or you want to join a company that is using Windows
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Server 2003, you can
    >>>
    >>>>> bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> upgrade path to the
    >>>
    >>>>> certification. If you are currently working in a
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Windows Server 2003
    >>>
    >>>>> environment or want to work in that environment, then
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> start with Windows
    >>>
    >>>>> Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> .
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    booby orr, Jul 31, 2003
    #15
  16. Clint Kennedy

    KLXrider Guest

    We still have have DOS systems on our network, so speak for yourself.

    But then again we still have PDP's in the corner.

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:05:41 -0400, booby orr <>
    wrote:

    >andy, i don't agree with your statement. lets be "honest" on this ng.
    >
    >w2k3 is not a brand new product platform compared to w2k. it's an
    >improvement on the w2k server os. most of the companies that have
    >already taken the plunge into the w2k environment and active directory
    >will definatly be upgrading to w2k3 - without a doubt. all the admin's i
    >have talked to are drooling over the updated AD management tools in
    >w2k3. and any new companies that are about to switch to a AD aren't
    >going to go with w2k. they are going to go straight to w2k3.
    >
    >so where's the logic to start "now" on a w2k mcse track?
    >
    >Andy Ruth [MS] wrote:
    >> That is true, but along the way you are proving that you have the skills
    >> needed to work in a Windows 2000 environment as well as a Windows Server
    >> 2003 environment. What environment you are working in (or want to work in)
    >> should be the driver there. If you get MCSA or MCSE on Windows 2000 now and
    >> work in that environment, then when they plan to go to Windows Server 2003
    >> or you want to join a company that is using Windows Server 2003, you can
    >> bone up on the delta between the two and have a simple upgrade path to the
    >> certification. If you are currently working in a Windows Server 2003
    >> environment or want to work in that environment, then start with Windows
    >> Server 2003 certification is the way to go.
    >>
     
    KLXrider, Jul 31, 2003
    #16
  17. Clint Kennedy

    KLXrider Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:13:02 -0400, booby orr <>
    wrote:

    > i am talking about the companies that
    >have already made the plunge into windows 2000 and ARE using Active
    >Directory an their network environment.


    That is not a very large percentage of the companies out there. Don't
    believe all the MS marketing hype.

    Newer isn't always better.......
     
    KLXrider, Jul 31, 2003
    #17
  18. Clint Kennedy

    booby orr Guest

    oh boy. i can see this turning into a netware vs w2k battle. but lets
    not go there.

    but, i am still trying to make my argument within the context of
    companies that have already or will be switching to w2k environments.
    how many they are, what % of the marketplace that is,
    blah..blah..blah... irrelevant

    people reading the ng posts are here 'cause they are or want to be
    mcse's and they are planning to work in a ms network environment.



    KLXrider wrote:
    > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:13:02 -0400, booby orr <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>i am talking about the companies that
    >>have already made the plunge into windows 2000 and ARE using Active
    >>Directory an their network environment.

    >
    >
    > That is not a very large percentage of the companies out there. Don't
    > believe all the MS marketing hype.
    >
    > Newer isn't always better.......
     
    booby orr, Jul 31, 2003
    #18
  19. Clint Kennedy

    Maestro Guest

    It's not too late, you just can't get certified.

    >-----Original Message-----
    >I am training for mcse for 2000 and how I wish I had NT4
    >training as well.NT4 is still big in the field from my
    >limited exp. and would love to learn it
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>Microsoft generally gives more than ample notice when

    >they
    >>plan to retire an "exam". With NT4 they gave at least a
    >>years heads up, and by the way anyone certified on 4.0

    >is
    >>still an MCSE. Microsoft is just not making any new

    >MCSEs
    >>on NT4. Now it's either W2k or W2K3. With that said

    >W2k
    >>has several years left on it's life cycle. Even if

    >you're
    >>only certifying for personal gain it still makes sense

    >to
    >>certify in an area that will be most useful to "you".

    >If
    >>it's W2k you're still safe for now and worst case

    >scenario
    >>will only require two upgrade exams to be certified on
    >>W2K3.
    >>
    >>There are quite a few posters here that are only

    >concerned
    >>with how fast they can certify, what's the easiest path

    >to
    >>certification, or what combination of test will give

    >them
    >>the max number of certs. My opinion is to go with what
    >>you think you can get the most return out of i.e. is

    >your
    >>company working with a specific product now or does it
    >>plans to upgrade in the near future, etc...?
    >>
    >>>-----Original Message-----
    >>>I haven't personally read anything on MS's website

    >>regarding the 2000 exams
    >>>being retired, but I'm still curious. I currently have

    >>only passed 70-210
    >>>and plan to pass 70-215 soon. I can study fully and

    >pass
    >>about 1 exam every
    >>>month. I plan to complete 70-215 then pick up my A+

    >(for
    >>the heck of it),
    >>>then 70-216, then Net+ (since so many topics are on

    >both
    >>exams, it will be
    >>>fresh), then 70-218 to achieve MCSA, then a design

    >course
    >>and a DB elective
    >>>course to get MCSE, then one more DB course for MSDBA.

    >>It's going to be
    >>>quite aggravating if I'm 2 tests shy of MCSE 2000 and

    >>they pull the tests as
    >>>they did with NT 4.0. I'm sure since more customers

    >are
    >>using 2000 and will
    >>>be for some time this won't happen within the next

    >year,
    >>giving me time to
    >>>complete it.
    >>>
    >>>It really makes me wish I would've tackled all of this

    >>years ago. I've
    >>>worked as a network tech for a solutions provider for

    >>several years, and now
    >>>have a job as a sysadmin/developer. I've really never

    >>needed certification,
    >>>it's purely a personal goal.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>
    >>>Clint Kennedy, BSCS, MCP
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>.
    >>>

    >>.
    >>

    >.
    >
     
    Maestro, Jul 31, 2003
    #19
  20. Clint Kennedy

    KLXrider Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:04:18 -0400, booby orr <>
    wrote:

    >people reading the ng posts are here 'cause they are or want to be
    >mcse's and they are planning to work in a ms network environment.


    Or like the entertainment.....
     
    KLXrider, Jul 31, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FsaSBUZWNo?=

    How much longer for 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FsaSBUZWNo?=, Feb 16, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    458
    Consultant
    Feb 16, 2006
  2. McAdam
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    791
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=
    Feb 17, 2005
  3. Goforit
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,650
    Goforit
    Jul 25, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?bG9sbw==?=
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    782
    Kline Sphere
    Feb 22, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,003
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page