Post reply

2000 or 2005

  • June 6, 2006 at 7:42 am

    #113309

    I've been a SQL DBA for a while now but have never taken the time to take any of the exams. I'd like to pair the experience I have with the certifications for professional reasons. I'm wondering if I should skip the 2000 tests and just move on to the 2005 exams. Any and all opinions are appreciated.

    Mark

  • June 6, 2006 at 8:59 am

    #642027

    Hi,

    My suggestion would be go for 2005.

    Thanks,

    Ravi

    MCP

  • June 6, 2006 at 9:05 am

    #642035

    IMHO -

    If the reason for certification is for you and your possible future endeavors, I would certify in 2005. If your current company is using 2000 and will not move to 2005 in the forseeable future, I'd certify as 2000.

    In 2000, I certified in SQL 7.0 even though the 2000 tests were coming out. I wish I had dug in and learned 2000 then and tested on it.



    Michelle

  • June 6, 2006 at 10:07 am

    #642069

    What are you using now?  If you've never taken any certification exams, then your first one should be on material with which you are most comfortable.

    The 2005 certification exams cover most of what you need to know for 2000, plus a whole lot more.  If you're not getting quality exposure to 2005, but lots of time with 2000, go get 70-228 or 70-229 out of the way first, and decide what to do from there.  The windows server exams are not part of the 2005 DBA track like 2000.  Instead, the SQL Server admin exams include configuring domains, networks, firewalls (ISA Server), user accounts, and all that crap as part of the test.  With the 2000 exams, you can target some specific skills and get it over with.

    However, if you're comfortable with 2005, then go bag 70-431 and don't look back.

    MS is running a promotion now, called the 'free second shot'.  If you sign up befiore you book your exam, then take the exam by June 30th, you can retake it for free in July if you don't pass.  It's great for folks taking their first exam because you're not putting up your cash to just get a feel for what they're like.

    -Eddie

    Eddie Wuerch
    MCM: SQL

  • June 7, 2006 at 1:51 am

    #642200

    Thats useful and reassuring info Eddie

    I did much as you suggested earlier this year. I have been using SQL Server for about 10 years but never certified. My company has no plans to go to 2005, and despite DBA role being a large part of my job, saw no value in SQL Server training for me, so I went and passed the 70-228 an 70-229 exams off my own bat (training camp, intensive but worth it), as you say, and am now wondering how to follow these up. Since I have no SQLServer 2005 exposure, I would struggle with the SQL Server 2K MCITP probably, but am worried about the MCDBA shelf life...

    David

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

  • June 7, 2006 at 7:24 am

    #642263

    There is a fundamental shift between the 2000 track and the 2005 track if you look at the outlines MS provides. The 2000 track had a lot of normalization, logic,etc for design.  They have now split that out for the most part.

    I took the 70-447 upgrade and it covers what it says in the MS outlines. I would not be concerned with being in a 2000 vs a 2005 shop because the underlying basis is the same, database administration. Sure it goes over the some new stuff but it is database administration.  If you are more of a programming/design DBA the get the 2005 database developer. Heck, get them both. I do not have 2005 sql servers at work but have 4 here at home. The practice tests from Measureup and Transcender do help.  Do not get practice tests from outside the US.

    The MCTS 431 probably covers more of the new things than the 447 upgrade test I took. They are offering a second shot right now so at least if you fail you can see what it is like.

     

     

    From an MCITP DBA, MCTS SQL 2005, MCDBA, MCSE+I,MCSD.net

     

     

  • June 7, 2006 at 9:33 am

    #642312

    I really agree with Eddie.  I was in the same boat, having been a SQL Server DBA for almost 8 years now and not knowing which route to take.  Since my exposure to 2005 was very limited, I decided to go for the 2000 cert. and got it several weeks ago.  Having 'quality exposure' makes a huge difference.  Also, as a few have already mentioned, the track for 2005 is very different from 2000.  Something else to consider.

  • June 20, 2006 at 5:11 am

    #644763

    Hi ,

    But my suggestion is that Go for 2005 instead of going back.

    Thanks

    Kamlesh Gujarathi

    kamlesh@itshastra.com

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply