Subj : Windows 2000 MCSE Upgrade Exam To : Steve Quarrella From : Lawrence Garvin Date : Sat Mar 31 2001 09:59 am Steve Quarrella said in a message to Lawrence Garvin: lg> Truthfully... I've got to say that of the four MCSE exams I SQ> Looks to me like you did the 4.0 track. Well.. I was working on the 4.0 track. Needed to pass two exams to complete the MCSE (NT4 Enterprise, and IIS4 as my elective) and the NT4 Workstation exam to reserve my right to do the upgrade exam. Unfortunately, Sylvan Prometric's Web Registration Site was totally FUBAR during February and it took me 2 attempts and 17 days before they finally delivered my site registration ID on 3/3/2001. By then, it was too late to register to take the exams. SQ> As you may be aware, I only get one shot at the upgrade exam. If SQ> I pass, I'm a 2000 MCSE. If I don't pass, it's back to square one, SQ> so I need to walk into this one ready to disembowel whatever they SQ> throw at me. I hear that. Truthfully, the more I think about it.. it would have cost me $400 to take the 3 NT4 exams and the one upgrade exam.. it'll cost me $800 to take all 8 MCSE2000 exams, but it'll force me to spend a lot more time preparing for each of the exams than I might have otherwise done for the one upgrade exam. In the end, I think that I will be a more qualified MCSE2000 than I might have been with just the upgrade exam. Others, of course, may have different experiences and results, and I do not at all mean to denigrate those taking the upgrade exam. SQ> Hands on has been the most important thing for me, but I am aware SQ> that Microsoft asks questions that do not reflect much of what you SQ> do in the real world. I'm hoping with their claimed renewed emphasis on real-world experience that there will be less of these (stupid) theoretical questions. SQ> I think one of the worst questions I encountered had to do with SQ> Personal Web Server on the NT4 Workstation exam. I'm certain that SQ> has its importance at the user level, but come on, guys: If I SQ> have to do a web server, at least tell me that using IIS is "the SQ> correct answer" (even if I hate the thing the more I work with it SQ> :). Absolutely! In fact, with the development of FP98, FPSE, and IIS4, I was surprised that Microsoft even continued to acknowledge the existence of PWS. SQ> That's where the books come in handy. I've seen very knowledgeable SQ> people walk into these exams and fail them, because they're not SQ> acquainted with how Microsoft does things on their tests. Quite true.... which tends to lend some credibility for those type people using the Microsoft Press books (if for no other reason than the sample exam questions) rather than 3rd party books (Sybex, Osborne, New Riders). lg> 1. I never cracked a book for Networking Essentials and SQ> I took a foot up the backside for the old Networking Basics exam, SQ> because the OSI model was completely new to me at the time. Ouch... yeah... that would be a tough one. SQ> I noticed that the Networking Essentials exam was a little less SQ> grueling in that department, but if you didn't know where a certain SQ> device operated on the OSI model, you were in big trouble. I got most of my OSI background from a number of TCP/IP books, most notably the Comer, Volume I, that I studied in the mid-90s while building the Health Dept's network. SQ> Did you get a lot of token ring questions on your exam? Not any more than I recall being capable of answering. I'd done some previous studying of TR technologies, so I had a good solid overview of the technology before the exam, but I've never worked in a TR environment. SQ> To this day, I don't understand why Microsoft asked me about TR SQ> (and their questions WERE sneaky ones!). Uh.. I suspect that comes from the anti-IBM attitude and their awareness that to compete, NT would need to be deployed in some IBM/Token Ring environments. SQ> Of all the exams on the 4.0 track, only NT in the Enterprise got SQ> me to the point where I wondered "Am I going to pass this one?" I think that's why I put that one off for so long. One, because it honestly intimidated me... not the concepts themselves, so much, but the awareness of how easily Microsoft could complicate a multi-domain scenario in a test environment. That combined with the fact that, even today, I've never worked in a multi-domain environment. lg> My perspective is that I'm very comfortable performing duties lg> in an NT Server environment.. but none of the books prepared lg> me adequately for the EXAM. To that end, I fault the EXAM for lg> failing to adequately represent real life deployments of the lg> operating system. SQ> Many of my NT study guides were equally useless, although they are SQ> GREAT reference guides. That they are... and, ya know, after all is said and done.. that is the real reason I invested in the books in the first place.. to help me -perform- my duties better. SQ> To this day, I still have the NT 3.51 TCP/IP official curriculum, SQ> and I won't part with it, given its usefulness in preparation. Interesting! :-) I continue to refer to Minasi's Mastering Windows NT Server 4 as my volume of preference when pursuing NT4 issues. My second choice is the NT 4 Professional Reference. Time will tell as I pursue my MCSE2000 via the Microsoft Press tomes. --- * Origin: lawrence@fido.eforest.net | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018) .