Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computer Certification > MCSD > I am looking for test authors to write preparation tests for Microsoft exams

Reply
Thread Tools

I am looking for test authors to write preparation tests for Microsoft exams

 
 
Richard Deal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2003
To all,



My name is Richard Deal and I have recently taken over the operation of
QuizWare (http://www.quizware.com), which is a channel partner of Boson, and
am in the process of recruiting test authors to develop new tests for
QuizWare.



I am actively looking for authors to write preparation exams for Microsoft's
certification tests.



I'm also looking for other vendor exams, like Cisco, Novell, Checkpoint, and
others, but a few of the Microsoft exams are really hot right now. At
QuizWare, we typically distinguish our exams from Boson's by including
300-500 questions per exam, but we charge a slightly higher price than
Boson, which means more money for you!



If you are interested in writing exams exclusive to QuizWare, please contact
me via email ((E-Mail Removed)) or you can call me at 407-383-8178. I
can explain the royalty method we use to pay authors, which amounts to
something between 30-40% of the price of each test. Please contact me for
further details!



Thanks and Cheers!



Richard Deal


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Briscoe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2003
Because someone might answer you the third time...

--

KB - MCNGP #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank Crow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2003
Piece of cake! I've got to wonder why you are looking here though.

When you say "develop", *exactly* what do you mean? I'm fully aware of
common practices and conventions related to software development. I just
want to know what you have in mind.

Boson? What do they do? What other products do you have? Surely you
must have some sort of defined requirements for such positions don't you?
Would you care to elaborate?

I've been reading Microsoft technical documentation since DOS 3.0 and MSC
4.0 were new and have used virtually every o/s that MS has released with the
exception of the datacenter and non-x86 editions.

In fact I was just looking at my WinNT 3.51 Premium Editition with the old
SDK/DDK which was a preliminary draft released just before the Windows
95/Win32 SDK final was being prepared.

To be fully honest Microsoft has clearly established a pattern of one bad
idea after another. First they are the favorite brain-child of the current
development team. Then they have their half-day in the sun being billed as
the greatest thing ever thought of on a computer system. Then, almost
without fail, quietly put out to pasture when the next "big idea" is dreamed
up.

It's just about come full circle as of late in fact.

First they came up with DOS based MS-C. To avoid assembly language for
serious development. Lattice C and Borland were favored and quite superior
products. Then MS learned one of their favorite tricks. Modify the
operating system in conjunction with the development languages and tools
rapidly. While they're at it, make sure it causes a problem with the
competition's development tools.

They rushed in to Windows 3.1, 3.11 and NT 3.5 as quickly as they could and
found themselves with too many loose design ends. Enter DDE. Brilliant
new technology (NT) helps them straighten out their own design thoughts.
They try to make the world revolve around it.

They run into design limitations because really they never had the best o/s
people there to begin with. That guy that left DEC to help them dream up
NT didn't leave DEC just because he wanted to join up with a then
small-potatoes, no credibility, half-baked, so-called software house ...i.e.
Microsoft. He had outlived his usefulness at DEC and although DEC would
see several more years of o/s design ahead of them, that guy had nothing of
value to contribute.

So with DDE running into its own poor design they came up with OLE. Then
as they transitioned from real mode on 286's to protected mode on 386's they
came up with OLE32 and Win32. Mainly "C" and assembler. It still really
didn't do much of anything useful.

After they stole the design of os/2, resulting in Windows 95, they hammered
OLE into their Word Processor and Spreadsheet. This resulted in COM
objects and the Microsoft Office product. Which aside from various face
lifts is still very similar to Office '95. You can still do the same
little or nothing by inserting a COM object into a document as you could do
back then.

It wasn't very long before the Microsoft Systems Journal was sporting a
"COM+" headline on the cover. I remember the author's lack of cohesion and
certainty. COM+ is *not just* COM or OLE, it's something more. Look at
all the wonderful services that someone will figure out something to do with
eventually.

It's great! So great that it's actually DCOM! Ya! You take your answer
to DDE and shake it up with a dash of word processor, yielding some OLE,
fold in 32-bit pointers and a little more organization and you'll have a
bunch of COM. Let COM rise out of its rush to market and lack of good
design and you get COM+, which, when you distribute it over more than one
machine using a proprietary, slow and feature-poor protocol you have DCOM!

Now DCOM is good for a few years worth of 95/Osr1/Osr2, Office '95/'97/'98,
NT 3.5, 3.51 updates...at least! Of course it nobody really uses what it
is capable of for very much of anything...and without spending lots of time
puzzling over the confusion of related MS documentation...you can't really
use it directly for anything practical. Hopefully nobody will find out
that the whole thing from OLE to DCOM has already been done in other
operating systems in the form of function libraries and dispatch tables.
That way maybe people will believe that MS invented the concept! (some
people will believe just about anything)

Lots of servers, services, Win98/SE, NT 4.0 and it's 7 service packs later
(we don't count the unreleased SP7...but 6 is different than 6a...so...) it
has become pretty apparent that the glass ceiling is right there. In fact
MS has a name for it. DCOM.

Plenty of other *retarded* design decisions were continually being made
meanwhile...and still are...make no mistake. Who has time to go over them
all?

But really to come full circle we need MS to introduce the next brain child,
the .NET framework. Which is actually a double-whammy. Not only does MS
say explicitly in their documentation that DCOM just won't cut it but also
goes on to say how the better solution is to have all languages be reduced
to a common, proprietary, pseudo-assembly language.

Hmmm. I thought that's where we started and wanted to get away from?
You mean all those assembler programmers that were cast as nay-sayers back
then were probably right? Or are you wrong now like you said they were
back then Microsoft? It doesn't really matter does it?

They also came full circle on completely losing their development
productions competition...completely left them way back in the dust. Such
a massive, cross-language, cross-platform major low-level change could only
be implemented that quickly by the likes of MS or IBM.

So then MS is free to resell the old MS-C 5.0 Programmer's Workbench (PWB)
and call it Visual Studio .NET....and then VS .NET 2003 just to really
squeeze all the blood out of the developer market turnip.

All of this leading the market with one half-baked bad idea after another
gave MS the perfect opportunity to re-think and tighten up their favorite
software subsystem...licensing. Product activation.

Meanwhile the flurry of API's being phased out, strung along and even
re-visited has become such an unreal cluster **** that it's just left
there...quiverring...half-documented...little understood...by even Microsoft
and getting farther and farther from any one-person or group's mind being
able to fully comprehend and make sense of. A perfect environment for MS
to completely take abusive advantage of people trying to develop software on
Windows...and so they did...and still do.

I'm not sure that I even like the idea of this MS certification thing.
I've seen those exams. I know MS certified people.

I've read the book of Microsoft for years and years now. It makes the
bible seem like a math or logic textbook in comparison. I'm sure that
somewhere in there, I must of missed though, there has to be animal
sacrifice and ritual magic. The Necronomicon is a sane, sensible and
practical guide to day-to-day life compared to the result of Microsoft's
handywork.

So you want to make exams, to certify professionals, based on the sheer
genius we know as Microsoft, huh? Sure why not? I know that somebody
related must be *certifiable*, that's for sure. Can such pure and utter
genius actually be captured and related in merely English alone? Or any
one language?

I think it should be something divine, angelic, like Tolkien's Valequenta,
or maybe the common language runtime.

Heck I sorta want to write a book *for* Microsoft. Like, on their behalf,
it would be called "The Idiots Guide to being Really Stupid." Since that
is clearly one of their greatest unrealized potentials.

So how much does the job pay?

-Frank



"Richard Deal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uQDrb.60172$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> To all,
>
>
>
> My name is Richard Deal and I have recently taken over the operation of
> QuizWare (http://www.quizware.com), which is a channel partner of Boson,

and
> am in the process of recruiting test authors to develop new tests for
> QuizWare.
>
>
>
> I am actively looking for authors to write preparation exams for

Microsoft's
> certification tests.
>
>
>
> I'm also looking for other vendor exams, like Cisco, Novell, Checkpoint,

and
> others, but a few of the Microsoft exams are really hot right now. At
> QuizWare, we typically distinguish our exams from Boson's by including
> 300-500 questions per exam, but we charge a slightly higher price than
> Boson, which means more money for you!
>
>
>
> If you are interested in writing exams exclusive to QuizWare, please

contact
> me via email ((E-Mail Removed)) or you can call me at 407-383-8178. I
> can explain the royalty method we use to pay authors, which amounts to
> something between 30-40% of the price of each test. Please contact me for
> further details!
>
>
>
> Thanks and Cheers!
>
>
>
> Richard Deal
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
¢harlie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2003
Frank,

Tell us how you REALLY feel - Don't hold back. 8^ ) ;^) 8^)


You forgot the M$ way of doing - TCP/IP by M$ - NETBUI



¢harlie






"Frank Crow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cYQzb.65792$U%(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Piece of cake! I've got to wonder why you are looking here though.
>
> When you say "develop", *exactly* what do you mean? I'm fully aware of
> common practices and conventions related to software development. I just
> want to know what you have in mind.
>
> Boson? What do they do? What other products do you have? Surely you
> must have some sort of defined requirements for such positions don't you?
> Would you care to elaborate?
>
> I've been reading Microsoft technical documentation since DOS 3.0 and MSC
> 4.0 were new and have used virtually every o/s that MS has released with

the
> exception of the datacenter and non-x86 editions.
>
> In fact I was just looking at my WinNT 3.51 Premium Editition with the old
> SDK/DDK which was a preliminary draft released just before the Windows
> 95/Win32 SDK final was being prepared.
>
> To be fully honest Microsoft has clearly established a pattern of one bad
> idea after another. First they are the favorite brain-child of the

current
> development team. Then they have their half-day in the sun being billed

as
> the greatest thing ever thought of on a computer system. Then, almost
> without fail, quietly put out to pasture when the next "big idea" is

dreamed
> up.
>
> It's just about come full circle as of late in fact.
>
> First they came up with DOS based MS-C. To avoid assembly language for
> serious development. Lattice C and Borland were favored and quite

superior
> products. Then MS learned one of their favorite tricks. Modify the
> operating system in conjunction with the development languages and tools
> rapidly. While they're at it, make sure it causes a problem with the
> competition's development tools.
>
> They rushed in to Windows 3.1, 3.11 and NT 3.5 as quickly as they could

and
> found themselves with too many loose design ends. Enter DDE. Brilliant
> new technology (NT) helps them straighten out their own design thoughts.
> They try to make the world revolve around it.
>
> They run into design limitations because really they never had the best

o/s
> people there to begin with. That guy that left DEC to help them dream up
> NT didn't leave DEC just because he wanted to join up with a then
> small-potatoes, no credibility, half-baked, so-called software house

....i.e.
> Microsoft. He had outlived his usefulness at DEC and although DEC would
> see several more years of o/s design ahead of them, that guy had nothing

of
> value to contribute.
>
> So with DDE running into its own poor design they came up with OLE. Then
> as they transitioned from real mode on 286's to protected mode on 386's

they
> came up with OLE32 and Win32. Mainly "C" and assembler. It still

really
> didn't do much of anything useful.
>
> After they stole the design of os/2, resulting in Windows 95, they

hammered
> OLE into their Word Processor and Spreadsheet. This resulted in COM
> objects and the Microsoft Office product. Which aside from various face
> lifts is still very similar to Office '95. You can still do the same
> little or nothing by inserting a COM object into a document as you could

do
> back then.
>
> It wasn't very long before the Microsoft Systems Journal was sporting a
> "COM+" headline on the cover. I remember the author's lack of cohesion

and
> certainty. COM+ is *not just* COM or OLE, it's something more. Look at
> all the wonderful services that someone will figure out something to do

with
> eventually.
>
> It's great! So great that it's actually DCOM! Ya! You take your

answer
> to DDE and shake it up with a dash of word processor, yielding some OLE,
> fold in 32-bit pointers and a little more organization and you'll have a
> bunch of COM. Let COM rise out of its rush to market and lack of good
> design and you get COM+, which, when you distribute it over more than one
> machine using a proprietary, slow and feature-poor protocol you have DCOM!
>
> Now DCOM is good for a few years worth of 95/Osr1/Osr2, Office

'95/'97/'98,
> NT 3.5, 3.51 updates...at least! Of course it nobody really uses what

it
> is capable of for very much of anything...and without spending lots of

time
> puzzling over the confusion of related MS documentation...you can't really
> use it directly for anything practical. Hopefully nobody will find out
> that the whole thing from OLE to DCOM has already been done in other
> operating systems in the form of function libraries and dispatch tables.
> That way maybe people will believe that MS invented the concept! (some
> people will believe just about anything)
>
> Lots of servers, services, Win98/SE, NT 4.0 and it's 7 service packs later
> (we don't count the unreleased SP7...but 6 is different than 6a...so...)

it
> has become pretty apparent that the glass ceiling is right there. In

fact
> MS has a name for it. DCOM.
>
> Plenty of other *retarded* design decisions were continually being made
> meanwhile...and still are...make no mistake. Who has time to go over

them
> all?
>
> But really to come full circle we need MS to introduce the next brain

child,
> the .NET framework. Which is actually a double-whammy. Not only does

MS
> say explicitly in their documentation that DCOM just won't cut it but also
> goes on to say how the better solution is to have all languages be reduced
> to a common, proprietary, pseudo-assembly language.
>
> Hmmm. I thought that's where we started and wanted to get away from?
> You mean all those assembler programmers that were cast as nay-sayers back
> then were probably right? Or are you wrong now like you said they were
> back then Microsoft? It doesn't really matter does it?
>
> They also came full circle on completely losing their development
> productions competition...completely left them way back in the dust.

Such
> a massive, cross-language, cross-platform major low-level change could

only
> be implemented that quickly by the likes of MS or IBM.
>
> So then MS is free to resell the old MS-C 5.0 Programmer's Workbench (PWB)
> and call it Visual Studio .NET....and then VS .NET 2003 just to really
> squeeze all the blood out of the developer market turnip.
>
> All of this leading the market with one half-baked bad idea after another
> gave MS the perfect opportunity to re-think and tighten up their favorite
> software subsystem...licensing. Product activation.
>
> Meanwhile the flurry of API's being phased out, strung along and even
> re-visited has become such an unreal cluster **** that it's just left
> there...quiverring...half-documented...little understood...by even

Microsoft
> and getting farther and farther from any one-person or group's mind being
> able to fully comprehend and make sense of. A perfect environment for MS
> to completely take abusive advantage of people trying to develop software

on
> Windows...and so they did...and still do.
>
> I'm not sure that I even like the idea of this MS certification thing.
> I've seen those exams. I know MS certified people.
>
> I've read the book of Microsoft for years and years now. It makes the
> bible seem like a math or logic textbook in comparison. I'm sure that
> somewhere in there, I must of missed though, there has to be animal
> sacrifice and ritual magic. The Necronomicon is a sane, sensible and
> practical guide to day-to-day life compared to the result of Microsoft's
> handywork.
>
> So you want to make exams, to certify professionals, based on the sheer
> genius we know as Microsoft, huh? Sure why not? I know that somebody
> related must be *certifiable*, that's for sure. Can such pure and utter
> genius actually be captured and related in merely English alone? Or any
> one language?
>
> I think it should be something divine, angelic, like Tolkien's

Valequenta,
> or maybe the common language runtime.
>
> Heck I sorta want to write a book *for* Microsoft. Like, on their

behalf,
> it would be called "The Idiots Guide to being Really Stupid." Since that
> is clearly one of their greatest unrealized potentials.
>
> So how much does the job pay?
>
> -Frank
>
>
>
> "Richard Deal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uQDrb.60172$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> > To all,
> >
> >
> >
> > My name is Richard Deal and I have recently taken over the operation of
> > QuizWare (http://www.quizware.com), which is a channel partner of Boson,

> and
> > am in the process of recruiting test authors to develop new tests for
> > QuizWare.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am actively looking for authors to write preparation exams for

> Microsoft's
> > certification tests.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm also looking for other vendor exams, like Cisco, Novell, Checkpoint,

> and
> > others, but a few of the Microsoft exams are really hot right now. At
> > QuizWare, we typically distinguish our exams from Boson's by including
> > 300-500 questions per exam, but we charge a slightly higher price than
> > Boson, which means more money for you!
> >
> >
> >
> > If you are interested in writing exams exclusive to QuizWare, please

> contact
> > me via email ((E-Mail Removed)) or you can call me at 407-383-8178.

I
> > can explain the royalty method we use to pay authors, which amounts to
> > something between 30-40% of the price of each test. Please contact me

for
> > further details!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Deal
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremyn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
The only good things to come out of Microsoft are MAPI, TAPI, and the
original OLE2.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I am looking for test authors to write preparation tests for Microsoft exams Richard Deal MCSA 4 12-09-2003 01:26 AM
Re: I am looking for test authors to write preparation tests for Microsoft exams Frank Crow MCAD 2 12-09-2003 01:26 AM
I am looking for test authors to write Microsoft preparation exams Richard Deal MCSD 0 11-10-2003 03:42 AM
I am looking for test authors to write Microsoft preparation exams Richard Deal MCSE 0 11-10-2003 03:41 AM
I am looking for test authors to write Microsoft preparation exams Richard Deal MCSD 0 11-10-2003 03:41 AM



Advertisments