Go Back   Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > MCSE
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply

MCSE - 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-07-2005, 11:18 PM   #1
Default 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??


Anyone have any pearls of wisdom? I got 900's on all my 2000 tests. I
failed 70-292 1st time. Spend 1 month straight studing (transcender, STS,
TK, Sybex), got 775 today (passed: but not as well as I thought). Because
292 was so hard, I have to decide if taking 293 & 294 seperately is a better
path than 296. Various posts say 296 not quite as hard as 292 but no cake
walk. I see brain dumps for 293 & 294 with lots of 900's. MS states 293 &
294 acceptable now but may cause issue down the road (if the requirements
change or tests discontinued). They say 296 was designed to avoid broken
paths.

What say you 293 & 294 or 296??
--



=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 12:01 AM   #2
catwalker63
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
"=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=" <>
prattled ceaslessly in
news:2216B65B-A2C8-4B24-9016-:

> Anyone have any pearls of wisdom? I got 900's on all my 2000 tests.
> I failed 70-292 1st time. Spend 1 month straight studing
> (transcender, STS, TK, Sybex), got 775 today (passed: but not as well
> as I thought). Because 292 was so hard, I have to decide if taking
> 293 & 294 seperately is a better path than 296. Various posts say 296
> not quite as hard as 292 but no cake walk. I see brain dumps for 293
> & 294 with lots of 900's. MS states 293 & 294 acceptable now but may
> cause issue down the road (if the requirements change or tests
> discontinued). They say 296 was designed to avoid broken paths.
>
> What say you 293 & 294 or 296??


I say braindumps are for a.s.s.f.u.c.k.e.r.s! And, personally, I'm going
to do 296. I don't like broken paths -- you can turn your ankle so
easily and that's such a bummer.

--
Catwalker
aka Pu$$y Feet
BS, MCP, MCSA
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
faq.mcngp.com
"If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would
deteriorate the cat." Mark Twain


catwalker63
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 02:21 PM   #3
Briscobar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
In news:2216B65B-A2C8-4B24-9016-,
Server_tech <> rambled:
>
> Anyone have any pearls of wisdom? I got 900's on all my 2000 tests.
> I failed 70-292 1st time. Spend 1 month straight studing
> (transcender, STS, TK <snip>


Why would you use TestKing?

--
KB

MCNGP #26
www.mcngp.com is real.




Briscobar
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:06 PM   #4
=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
Testking actually was helpful. 700 questions from 70-290/291/292. I
examined each question, read their answers, looked up the info, duplicated
the senario in my lab, & tested the ones I questioned. It forced me to go
deep into the subject matter. Quite a few of the TK answers were just flat
wrong. If you use it, don't trust it, just use it as a guide to evaluate
your knowlege. I am the type that learns better from argueing an answer than
just reading it in a book. So, the process was beneficial... to me.
--



"Briscobar" wrote:

> In news:2216B65B-A2C8-4B24-9016-,
> Server_tech <> rambled:
> >
> > Anyone have any pearls of wisdom? I got 900's on all my 2000 tests.
> > I failed 70-292 1st time. Spend 1 month straight studing
> > (transcender, STS, TK <snip>

>
> Why would you use TestKing?
>
> --
> KB
>
> MCNGP #26
> www.mcngp.com is real.
>
>
>



=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:13 PM   #5
kpg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
You're new here, aren't ya?




kpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:19 PM   #6
CBIC
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
Server_tech wrote:
> Testking actually was helpful. 700 questions from 70-290/291/292. I
> examined each question, read their answers, looked up the info,
> duplicated the senario in my lab, & tested the ones I questioned. It
> forced me to go deep into the subject matter. Quite a few of the TK
> answers were just flat wrong. If you use it, don't trust it, just
> use it as a guide to evaluate your knowlege. I am the type that
> learns better from argueing an answer than just reading it in a book.
> So, the process was beneficial... to me.


I still think using tk is wrong. It gives you actual questions from the
tests. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
--
aka
Doom MCNGP #38
Some people are like a Slinky.
Not good for much but still fun to push down a flight of stairs.





CBIC
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:28 PM   #7
Briscobar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
In news:A1DA478D-037C-45A9-8BF1-,
Server_tech <> rambled:
>
> Testking actually was helpful. 700 questions from 70-290/291/292. I
> examined each question, read their answers, looked up the info,
> duplicated the senario in my lab, & tested the ones I questioned. It
> forced me to go deep into the subject matter. Quite a few of the TK
> answers were just flat wrong. If you use it, don't trust it, just
> use it as a guide to evaluate your knowlege. I am the type that
> learns better from argueing an answer than just reading it in a book.
> So, the process was beneficial... to me. --
>



You are aware that TestKings are not condoned by Microsoft, and are
considered cheating, right?

Google this group for more information on why the hell TestKings are so
evil.

You're lucky I'm in a good mood today, or I'd call you an A.S.S.F.U.C.K.E.R.
But I won't.

--
KB

MCNGP #26
Cyrnfr ivfvg jjj.zpatc.pbz




Briscobar
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:50 PM   #8
=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
Yes, I am new here. I thought it was a cordial site, professional people,
good manners, polite vocabulary. I guess I was not 100% correct in that
assumption either. I don't intent this for you Mr. KPG, or Mr. CBIC.
--



"kpg" wrote:

> You're new here, aren't ya?
>
>
>



=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?=
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 04:58 PM   #9
Neil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
did you hear "=?Utf-8?B?U2VydmVyX3RlY2g=?="
<> say in news:C0466733-D86F-4232-
B1DC-:

> I thought it was a cordial site, professional people,
> good manners, polite vocabulary.


you thought wrong

the testking materials are considered "cheating". not only here by this
group, but by Microsoft as well. promoting or condoning there use is
simply making it an accessory after the fact. Don't be a dumper and you
will be fine here. BE a dumper and get dumped on.

--
Neil MCNGP#30

- Gun Fighting Rule: If you are not shooting, you should be
communicating, reloading, and running.


Neil
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2005, 05:01 PM   #10
kpg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 292 sucked, now go 296 or 293 & 294??
> Yes, I am new here. I thought it was a cordial site, professional people,
> good manners, polite vocabulary. I guess I was not 100% correct in that
> assumption either. I don't intent this for you Mr. KPG, or Mr. CBIC.
> --


Well, it's still UseNet. But this is a serious point. TK = Cheating.

If you didn't know that, well, now you do.

Search this NG to find out why. Here's a fun little activity, while
you're searching, see if you can find out what CBIC stands for.

P.S. If you find out what jtyc stands for I give you 100 bonus points.

If you find out what kpg stands for I'll call the FBI.

kpg




kpg
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hulk - I Loved The "Live Animation," Sam Elliott and JC; AL Commentary Sucked solipsistic@earthlink.net DVD Video 3 11-04-2003 08:08 PM




SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46