EDITOR'S NOTE: Windows & .NET Magazine welcomes feedback from readers about the magazine. Please send comments to letters @winnetmag.com and include your full name, email address, and daytime phone number with your letter. We edit all letters and replies for style, length, and clarity.
I agree with Mark Smith's comments in Fast Forward: "MCSEs Speak Out" (February 2004, InstantDoc ID 41392) about Microsoft's lack of support for MCSEs. My Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 MCSE certifications are current, and I'm in the process of upgrading to a Windows Server 2003 MCSE. Companies considered my NT 4.0 MCSE valuable in its day, but my Win2K MCSE just doesn't command the same recognition and value. However, my Novell NetWare 5.0 and
NetWare 4.11 CNE certifications have brought major benefits to my company and to me. Novell gives me discounted technical support, the Novell Knowledgebase free on CD-ROM, and a complete set of current evaluation software for my company and me to test. Novell updates the evaluation software a couple of times a year and only charges me $15 for shipping and handling. I believe Microsoft should take a cue from the support and recognition that Novell gives to its CNEs. If it did so, the MCSE would become more valuable both to professionals being certified and also to their employers and clients. As far as paper MCSEs go, I don't believe that people with certification but no experience get very far with their limited knowledge. Yes, the situation is a problem, but I believe it's a problem not solely for Microsoft but rather for the entire certification industry.
—Jason A. Kinder
jkinder@evolserv.com
I enjoyed Mark Smith's "MCSEs Speak Out." I wish Microsoft would create a certification path similar to that of Cisco Systems' Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (CCIE). I have visions of a Master MCSE certification, for which applicants must demonstrate their skills in a lab. The written portion of the test would remain as it is now, and the lab portion would require a true hands-on demonstration of deployment, administration, and problem-resolution knowledge over a 2- to 3-day period under the eye of Microsoft engineers. The Master MCSE would elevate the pedestrian status of the MCSE, reclaim respect for the certification, and generate esprit de corps among certification holders. No more brain dumps, test kings, or abuse of the Microsoft certification system.
—Paul Wetty
pcwetty@comcast.net
Regarding Mark Smith's "MCSEs Speak Out," I bought a Microsoft TechNet subscription and I don't use it. It's worthless—I use Google instead. Furthermore, Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs) receive the benefits Mark mentions because we volunteer time and energy in the program, giving back to our communities. We don't get those benefits for only passing exams.
—Susan Bradley
sbradcpa@pacbell.net
Folder Redirection and Microsoft Dfs Volumes
I read Ed Roth's article "Using IntelliMirror to Manage User Data and Settings" (July 2003, InstantDoc ID 39193) with great interest. My company is rolling out a midsized Windows Server 2003 network, and Ed's article gave me a lot of ideas about how we can leverage the technologies he mentions to streamline user data. However, Ed mentions that folder redirection shouldn't be used with Microsoft Dfs volumes. I'm curious as to what kinds of problems result from redirecting folders, particularly users' My Documents folders, to a Dfs volume. Has the situation improved with the release of Windows 2003?
—Khurram Hassan
kfhassan@magic.net.pk
I'm glad you found the article useful, Khurram. The point I made about not using Dfs is somewhat misleading. The root of the problem is that Windows 2000 Professional's Offline Files feature doesn't work with Dfs shares. I based my advice to avoid using a Dfs volume as a target for folder redirection on two assumptions: one, that folder redirection will be accompanied by offline files; and two, that a mixture of Windows XP Professional Edition and Win2K Pro clients might exist on the network. If you have a homogeneous XP Pro client base, you can safely deploy folder redirection to a Dfs volume.
—Ed Roth
L2TP Remote Access Update
I think Randy Franklin Smith did a great job with the article "L2TP Remote Access" (January 2004, InstantDoc ID 41107). I used Windows 2000 to implement Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) authentication at a remote site 2 years ago and could never understand why I was able to use the authentication from home but not from work (my company uses Network Address Translation—NAT). After reading Randy's article, I realized that I was up against NAT-Transversal (NAT-T).
Randy mentioned that when he wrote the article, he used a beta version of Windows Server 2003. I'll pass along a change to the server Properties dialog box (Figure 2 in the article) in the final version of Windows 2003. The text of the check box in Figure 2 that reads Client must always send the signature attribute in the request now reads Request must contain the Message Authenticator attribute in the final version of Windows 2003.
—John Rolstead
jarols@solutia.com
Previous
Register
