MCSE or MCSA?

[TechieSooner]

I'd really like to get my Microsoft certs taken care of and out of the way. Won't help me any with current employer but perhaps in the future!

My question is go MCSE or MCSA?

Also, does Microsoft have a "master" test to take and get those certifications? Taking several MCPs is rather PITA in my opinion.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

No. There is no "master" test.
It's a large certification for a reason.

Take a few of those mcp tests and you'll appreciate them more later.

MCSA or MCSE is up to you. You cant get an MCSE without an MCSA, so go for the MCSA first and once you have that decide for yourself if you want to keep going.

 

[Nybbles]

How about neither? Why take exams for the previous generation of products when you could spend that time, effort, and money on the Server 2008 exams?

I would recommend you change your question to "MCITP:SA or MCITP:EA?". The great thing about it is they share many of the same exams so you can get started right away and make the decision on how far to go later.

In case you need information regarding the new line of Microsoft certifications: MCITP:SA and MCITP:EA.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

How about neither? Why take exams for the previous generation of products when you could spend that time, effort, and money on the Server 2008 exams?

Because you're not going to walk into a job at ANY company where 100% of their environment is 2008/Vista.

If you think 2003 is a waste of time/money it's obvious you are just getting the certs to pad a resume.

I work in a 2003 R2 environment that is slowly making the switch to move non-critical operations and infrastructure over to 2008. In time we might even be a 75% 03, 25% 08 shop, but it will be YEARS before our transition is complete. Which is the same story across a lot of corporate America.

I got my 2003 certs to gain valuable knowledge in an environment I already work with. If I walked into a 2003 shop knowing only about technologies and procedures for doing things in 2008 I would look pretty stupid when asked to set up things that don't work the same way in 2008 as they did in 2003.

 

[shabazkilla]

Because you're not going to walk into a job at ANY company where 100% of their environment is 2008/Vista.

If you think 2003 is a waste of time/money it's obvious you are just getting the certs to pad a resume.

I work in a 2003 R2 environment that is slowly making the switch to move non-critical operations and infrastructure over to 2008. In time we might even be a 75% 03, 25% 08 shop, but it will be YEARS before our transition is complete. Which is the same story across a lot of corporate America.

I got my 2003 certs to gain valuable knowledge in an environment I already work with. If I walked into a 2003 shop knowing only about technologies and procedures for doing things in 2008 I would look pretty stupid when asked to set up things that don't work the same way in 2008 as they did in 2003.

I Agree. Hell, there are many shops still running Windows 2000 servers in production. And a few that are dumb enough to still be running NT4.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

MCSA or MCSE is up to you. You cant get an MCSE without an MCSA, so go for the MCSA first and once you have that decide for yourself if you want to keep going.

Makes the most sense to me.

I have no desire to get the MCSE. I thought I wanted one, then I got into Cisco and realized you don't have to take 8 exams for a single cert.

 

[fluke420]

And a few that are dumb enough to still be running NT4.

Hey, that's just mean.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

Makes the most sense to me.

I have no desire to get the MCSE. I thought I wanted one, then I got into Cisco and realized you don't have to take 8 exams for a single cert.

Sounds like you are looking for the least effort/most certs way of doing things.

Just FYI that only the CCNA is 1 exam for the cert (2 if you want to split it)

A CCNP is similar to a MCSE in that you must take multiple exams covering multiple different kinds of technologies and study material to get the overall certification.

These higher level industry certs are not to be taken lightly. I'm pretty sure my brain would explode had the MCSE been a single test. Studying that much material covering that many different topics would have been a nightmare. Plus the test would have been like 12-16 hours long if it were all combined.

 

[Vermillion]

I Agree. Hell, there are many shops still running Windows 2000 servers in production. And a few that are dumb enough to still be running NT4.

Hey now...I still support Windows NT on a production system. Against my will of course but thank God they're finally getting rid of it.

MCSE is not wasting time. Windows 2003 will remain strong in the IT world for many more years.

MCSE defnitiely over the MCSA. Plus once you have the MCSE taking any one of the other exams like an Exchange 2003 exam gets you the MCSA anyways.

That's why I'm MCSE and MCSA. Had my MCSE in 2003 then got my MCSA as soon as I passed the first Exchange 2003 exam. Took the second Exchange 2003 exam and got my MCSE: Messaging and MCSA: Messaging.

 

[Vermillion]

Makes the most sense to me.

I have no desire to get the MCSE. I thought I wanted one, then I got into Cisco and realized you don't have to take 8 exams for a single cert.

True, but Cisco certs also expire while Microsoft do not. They get outdated as systems are retired but they're good for a long time. If you want to keep Cisco active you have to keep taking exams and moving up in the ranks of Cisco certs.

Thus why I haven't taken my CCNA exam yet. I've done the studying and the classes. Have all the tools. Know all the material. But have been too lazy to take the exam for something that expires in 3 years because I have no intention on going CCNP or anything like that.

Not to mention the Cisco exams are far harder then any of the MS stuff.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

Sounds like you are looking for the least effort/most certs way of doing things.

Just FYI that only the CCNA is 1 exam for the cert (2 if you want to split it)

A CCNP is similar to a MCSE in that you must take multiple exams covering multiple different kinds of technologies and study material to get the overall certification.

These higher level industry certs are not to be taken lightly. I'm pretty sure my brain would explode had the MCSE been a single test. Studying that much material covering that many different topics would have been a nightmare. Plus the test would have been like 12-16 hours long if it were all combined.

I'm looking for the least amount of effort for the most money, lol. A CCNP is only four exams (I'm working on it now), still half the amount of the MCSE.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

True, but Cisco certs also expire while Microsoft do not. They get outdated as systems are retired but they're good for a long time. If you want to keep Cisco active you have to keep taking exams and moving up in the ranks of Cisco certs.

Thus why I haven't taken my CCNA exam yet. I've done the studying and the classes. Have all the tools. Know all the material. But have been too lazy to take the exam for something that expires in 3 years because I have no intention on going CCNP or anything like that.

Not to mention the Cisco exams are far harder then any of the MS stuff.

I guess I never worried about it as I plan on moving up the track. Recerting with Cisco is usually pretty easy too as you usually only need to take one exam and it will recertify whatever you hold.

I don't think Cisco exams are harder than MS, they're just different. Networking is my true love anyway.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

I'm looking for the least amount of effort for the most money, lol.

expect to hear the term "paper CCNA" from your cowokers then.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

expect to hear the term "paper CCNA" from your cowokers then.

Hardly. I don't know where in my post you got the impression that I don't know my shit.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

From all the statements implying you want to take shortcuts and finish the certs as soon as possible with as little effort as possible.

I wish you luck though. Passing is passing.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

From all the statements implying you want to take shortcuts and finish the certs as soon as possible with as little effort as possible.

I wish you luck though. Passing is passing.

Wow, your interpretation of my statements is pretty far off. I said I want certs that get me the most money with the least amount of effort, meaning I would prefer less exams and a more valuable cert. In my experience, Cisco certs are generally more valuable than MS certs.

I never said I take shortcuts when getting a cert, nor did I say or imply that I try to get a certification before actually understanding the technology. I've never been called a "paper" anything, and I doubt I ever will.

Did one of my posts hit a nerve about your MCSE or something?

 

[requiemnoise]

2003 will be around for a long time. Most large companies slowly moved to 2003 in the last three years. If you are going for 2008, you won't able to utilize it now.

 

[Nybbles]

Because you're not going to walk into a job at ANY company where 100% of their environment is 2008/Vista.

If you think 2003 is a waste of time/money it's obvious you are just getting the certs to pad a resume.

I agree that many places still run older operating systems. At my job, we manage almost 1000 Windows Servers.... most are 2003, some apps still require 2000, and we still have a few NT4 boxes hanging around (more than I'd like to admit ). We are just at the point where we are deploying our first production 2008 servers for our new Microsoft System Center implementation.

With that said... IT is a constantly changing field. Often times, its tough enough to find time to get certified on a product, so when you can why not get certified on the latest? Additionally, I seriously doubt that any employer would pass up giving you an interview opportunity because you were too up-to-date with your knowledge and experience, especially if your resume experience demonstrated a proficiency with the previous generation of products (i.e. 2003 Server, etc).

I got my 2003 certs to gain valuable knowledge in an environment I already work with. If I walked into a 2003 shop knowing only about technologies and procedures for doing things in 2008 I would look pretty stupid when asked to set up things that don't work the same way in 2008 as they did in 2003.

I agree that you would look silly without knowing about the products and versions you're employed to support. With that said, 2003 and 2008 aren't that different. If an employee had 2008 certs and cant perform standard administrative tasks on 2003 (or vice versa), then I'd seriously question if IT is the right field for them.