Subj : Windows 2000 MCSE Upgrade Exam To : Lawrence Garvin From : Steve Quarrella Date : Sat Mar 31 2001 12:58 pm LG> Well.. I was working on the 4.0 track. Needed to pass two exams to LG> complete the MCSE (NT4 Enterprise, and IIS4 as my elective) and the LG> NT4 Workstation exam to reserve my right to do the upgrade exam. This is why I took the Workstation exam, although, like you, I had passed the '95 exam. LG> Unfortunately, Sylvan Prometric's Web Registration Site was totally Don't even get me started on these Bozos. I have had more bad experiences with them than good experiences, and their sad excuse for a customer service department does the job of Inspector Clouseau. I don't test through Sylvan Prometric if I can avoid it. LG> FUBAR during February and it took me 2 attempts and 17 days before LG> they finally delivered my site registration ID on 3/3/2001. By LG> then, it was too late to register to take the exams. I'd have called Microsoft about that one. You made the attempt, and Sylvan bollixed it up. LG> Truthfully, the more I think about it.. it would have cost me $400 LG> to take the 3 NT4 exams and the one upgrade exam.. it'll cost me LG> $800 to take all 8 MCSE2000 exams, but it'll force me to spend a That's what I'm trying to avoid, given that my previous employers want to reap the benefits of having someone with a certification onsite, but they refuse to pay for it. As far as I'm concerned, if I pay $100 and pass, I pass that onto my employer during a review (and if they don't bite, I can shop elsewhere). If I pay $800, same thing: Either you pay me, or someone else will. LG> otherwise done for the one upgrade exam. In the end, I think that I LG> will be a more qualified MCSE2000 than I might have been with just LG> the upgrade exam. I was paper certified with my 3.51 MCSE -- I did the entire 4.0 track to prove to myself that those times had changed -- so I know all about walking that tightrope. In this case, it's all about money, and I have every indication that the real hands on experience will come, in due time. LG> Absolutely! In fact, with the development of FP98, FPSE, and IIS4, LG> I was surprised that Microsoft even continued to acknowledge the LG> existence of PWS. I don't recall the exam, but there was one I took in the 4.0 track where they wanted you to put "NetBEUI" as the correct answer (and the alternatives were BS, like NWLink, SNA, or DLC). Come on...when's the last time you seriously rolled out NetBEUI at the enterprise level? LG> Quite true.... which tends to lend some credibility for those type LG> people using the Microsoft Press books (if for no other reason than LG> the sample exam questions) rather than 3rd party books (Sybex, LG> Osborne, New Riders). I always take Microsoft's own sample exams. You see less and less of their trail on the newer exams, but you've still got a brief crash course on what their expectations are, and every so often, you'll catch an exam question just like one of the samples. Just as long as you read it, word-for-word, and don't assume that you're seeing the same question, you've got a "gimme" (but I -have- seen the same question on occasion). SQ>> To this day, I don't understand why Microsoft asked me about TR SQ>> (and their questions WERE sneaky ones!). LG> Uh.. I suspect that comes from the anti-IBM attitude and their LG> awareness that to compete, NT would need to be deployed in some That would be my take on it, too. I recall on either the '95 or the NTWS exam, that they were very heavy on Novell, with the obvious intent of having you understand how to migrate. You know you're getting a bum deal, though, when they're asking you how to install the LFN support on Netware! :-) 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?" LG> I think that's why I put that one off for so long. One, because it LG> honestly intimidated me... not the concepts themselves, so much, Groups will kick your ass if you're not careful. Once you understand who can belong to what group, you're OK, but even then, the NTE exam was quite tedious in this regard, as you had to wade through scenario after scenario, with the clock a-tickin'. I really think they want you to panic. I know I felt a brief moment of it, and then I said to myself "You've got close to an hour left, you're paying for this exam, take all the time you need." I won't go into how I approach a non-adaptive exam, but with that breath of air, I rallied my troops and came back. Remember how Rocky was saying to Mr. T in the one movie "You ain't so bad...you ain't so bad"? ;-) LG> multi-domain scenario in a test environment. That combined with the LG> fact that, even today, I've never worked in a multi-domain LG> environment. I have, but only with two domains in a complete trust, for the purpose of migration. Otherwise, yeah, ask me what the four domain models are, and I can tell you, but if it's not single domain or complete trust, I only know about it on paper. 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. LG> Interesting! :-) I'd like to think that I'm much better with this stuff now than I was back in '95 and '96 when I was getting the 3.51 certification, but I really do think the old tests were much, much harder. They really grilled me on the 3.51 IP exam, with DNS and WINS and DHCP and FUBAR and everything else. At the time, I barely understood these concepts. Now, I have exposure to all of them, but I still think the 4.0 IP exam was considerably less detailed in its scrutiny of my abilities. --- * Origin: Where'd you get the gun, John? (1:393/9005) .