«

I love this app, a Pc (or PCs) within your Pc for study... damage the system
as much as you want, with not effect on your day to day system .... perfect
for training (a little slow to boot the VMs tho, I recommend increasing the
RAM on the VM to 256+)

if you don't kow about it check out
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx for the 45day trial
....

I'm looking forward to the Virtual Server 2005 release

ciao

If you're still running W2K on your personal computer, then there's no
point in even trying for an MCDST. Virtual PC is intended mainly for
virtual test servers. So....why not just run Win XP Pro completely??
Makes no sense.

"Simon" <> wrote in
news:eN19$:

> I love this app, a Pc (or PCs) within your Pc for study... damage the
> system as much as you want, with not effect on your day to day system
> .... perfect for training (a little slow to boot the VMs tho, I
> recommend increasing the RAM on the VM to 256+)
>
> if you don't kow about it check out
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx for the 45day
> trial ...
>
> I'm looking forward to the Virtual Server 2005 release
>
> ciao
>
>
>



--
Lasher
MCNGP 110010
MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
(Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

Lowdes,

I was your website:

http://www.planetoftheheads.com/customers/amcngp/

It was l337!!!1!!11!!!!

Go crawl under a rock and die, please.

"lowdes" <> wrote in news:e3fBf.37035$:

> You make no sense.
>
>



--
Lasher
MCNGP 110010
MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
(Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

I do run XP and I'm using the trial version of XP in Virtual PC. I find its
helped me to play around with XP (in V.PC) and not messing up my day to day
machine. Especially when you're playing around in the registry or messing
with services. I orginally got the idea of using V.PC for studying for my
exams from the Microsoft E-Learning tutorials.

Basically what I've found works for me:
1) Install V.PC
2) Install XP Pro in a V.PC Session
3) Take a backup of the V.PC hard disk
4) Mess around with XP Pro as much as I want

If I feel I've gotten to a point where I've changed to many settings in the
V.PC XP Pro install, I can just copy over the backup I made of the virtual
hard disk, hey presto! fresh base install of XP Pro. And my (non-virtual) PC
is just the same as always for day-to-day use.

If that doesn't make sense, I don't know what does....

"Lasher" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9754C31752554lashertokenid@207.46.248.16.. .
> Lowdes,
>
> I was your website:
>
> http://www.planetoftheheads.com/customers/amcngp/
>
> It was l337!!!1!!11!!!!
>
> Go crawl under a rock and die, please.
>
> "lowdes" <> wrote in
> news:e3fBf.37035$:
>
>> You make no sense.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lasher
> MCNGP 110010
> MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
> (Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

"Simon" <> wrote in
news::

> I do run XP and I'm using the trial version of XP in Virtual PC. I
> find its helped me to play around with XP (in V.PC) and not messing up
> my day to day machine. Especially when you're playing around in the
> registry or messing with services. I orginally got the idea of using
> V.PC for studying for my exams from the Microsoft E-Learning
> tutorials.
>
> Basically what I've found works for me:
> 1) Install V.PC
> 2) Install XP Pro in a V.PC Session
> 3) Take a backup of the V.PC hard disk
> 4) Mess around with XP Pro as much as I want
>
> If I feel I've gotten to a point where I've changed to many settings
> in the V.PC XP Pro install, I can just copy over the backup I made of
> the virtual hard disk, hey presto! fresh base install of XP Pro. And
> my (non-virtual) PC is just the same as always for day-to-day use.
>
> If that doesn't make sense, I don't know what does....
>

There's nothing that you're going to be asked in the exam that really you can't fix. IMHO, you're making this too hard on yourself, but I do
have to complement you if you're going to take it to such an extreme level. If you're tinkering around with XP in the manner that you're
doing programming, debugging, or attepting to design a virus, then I can understand. Otherwise and personally, it doesn't make sense to the
Windows XP Pro user.

--
Lasher
MCNGP 110010
MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
(Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

I'm really thinking about developing study methods that will apply to more
exams in the future, like 70-270, which is much more server based.

"Lasher" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9759C473C985Elashertokenid@207.46.248.16.. .
> "Simon" <> wrote in
> news::
>
>> I do run XP and I'm using the trial version of XP in Virtual PC. I
>> find its helped me to play around with XP (in V.PC) and not messing up
>> my day to day machine. Especially when you're playing around in the
>> registry or messing with services. I orginally got the idea of using
>> V.PC for studying for my exams from the Microsoft E-Learning
>> tutorials.
>>
>> Basically what I've found works for me:
>> 1) Install V.PC
>> 2) Install XP Pro in a V.PC Session
>> 3) Take a backup of the V.PC hard disk
>> 4) Mess around with XP Pro as much as I want
>>
>> If I feel I've gotten to a point where I've changed to many settings
>> in the V.PC XP Pro install, I can just copy over the backup I made of
>> the virtual hard disk, hey presto! fresh base install of XP Pro. And
>> my (non-virtual) PC is just the same as always for day-to-day use.
>>
>> If that doesn't make sense, I don't know what does....
>>
>
> There's nothing that you're going to be asked in the exam that really you
> can't fix. IMHO, you're making this too hard on yourself, but I do
> have to complement you if you're going to take it to such an extreme
> level. If you're tinkering around with XP in the manner that you're
> doing programming, debugging, or attepting to design a virus, then I can
> understand. Otherwise and personally, it doesn't make sense to the
> Windows XP Pro user.
>
> --
> Lasher
> MCNGP 110010
> MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
> (Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

Greetings

VMWARE is free, if I wasn't locked in on Virtual Server, I would go for
this. Until virtualization is native in your OS. Selling-points for me are
the support for 64-bit and IO-performance.

> If you're still running W2K on your personal computer, then there's no
> point in even trying for an MCDST. Virtual PC is intended mainly for
> virtual test servers. So....why not just run Win XP Pro completely??
> Makes no sense.

Virtual PC is part of a large virtualization strategy which is likely to
result in native support for OS virtualization in Vista and a strong strong
focus on server virtualization in Windows Server 2007.

>> I'm looking forward to the Virtual Server 2005 release

Virtual Server 2005 R2? released long ago.
Cost is $60 or something if you are not a MSDN subscriber or beta tester.
If you use this, use Remote Desktop to connect, it is better than the vmrc.

"Gorm Braarvig" <> wrote in
news::

> Greetings
>
> VMWARE is free, if I wasn't locked in on Virtual Server, I would go
> for this. Until virtualization is native in your OS. Selling-points
> for me are the support for 64-bit and IO-performance.
>
>> If you're still running W2K on your personal computer, then there's
>> no point in even trying for an MCDST. Virtual PC is intended mainly
>> for virtual test servers. So....why not just run Win XP Pro
>> completely?? Makes no sense.
>
> Virtual PC is part of a large virtualization strategy which is likely
> to result in native support for OS virtualization in Vista and a
> strong strong focus on server virtualization in Windows Server 2007.
>
>>> I'm looking forward to the Virtual Server 2005 release
>
> Virtual Server 2005 R2? released long ago.
> Cost is $60 or something if you are not a MSDN subscriber or beta
> tester. If you use this, use Remote Desktop to connect, it is better
> than the vmrc.
>
>

The only reason I'm replying to this is to point out how off-topic the
points are that you make. I honestly see no reason why someone should
use VMWARE or Virtual PC v* for an MCDST certification unless they are
mentally inept. The test does not require any sort of debugging or
beta-testing experience, nor an environment to emulate such.

What I've found for _most_ people that I've helped pass the MCDST
certification is a lack of understanding with TCP/IP. There is no
reason to even worry about a 64-bit environment because at the moment
this test is not about Windows: Vista nor about Windows Server 2k*.

Are those who now seek MCDST status a member of MSDN, MCT, or a MS: Beta
Tester? Probably not because if they are a member of MSDN, MCT, or a MS
Beta Tester, they probably already have the certification.

Agreed that it is a good goal to go towards, but it I only find that it
would be a hindrance upon those who seek an MCDST to even begin
considering this sort of layered research.

For those of you that are, read the prior posts and you'll find that the
answers on your best study methods lie within those. If you can't find
an answer, please ask. But, don't ask for a "cram sheet" or "brain
dump" on .pdf or any other format because I will chew you out for being
a lazy cheater.

--
Lasher
MCNGP 110010
MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
(Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)

> The only reason I'm replying to this is to point out how off-topic the
> points are that you make. I honestly see no reason why someone should
> use VMWARE or Virtual PC v* for an MCDST certification unless they are
> mentally inept. The test does not require any sort of debugging or
> beta-testing experience, nor an environment to emulate such.

I don't see the connection between virtualization and
debugging/beta-testing, neither, I suspect, will you in the not so distant
future

> What I've found for _most_ people that I've helped pass the MCDST
> certification is a lack of understanding with TCP/IP. There is no
> reason to even worry about a 64-bit environment because at the moment
> this test is not about Windows: Vista nor about Windows Server 2k*.

The reason for the 64-bit is that if you shall install Exchange, you will in
the future (E12) be forced to use 64-bit, don't know if that applies to
anything. Yet.

> Are those who now seek MCDST status a member of MSDN, MCT, or a MS: Beta
> Tester? Probably not because if they are a member of MSDN, MCT, or a MS
> Beta Tester, they probably already have the certification.

Well, this is not true of me, I have no certifications at all, and many
questions on beta-newsgroups gives an impression of being asked by
non-experts, (I, myself lack basic network-knowledge), so I can't agree with
you here. MSDN (Professional/Universal) is for sale and requires no
certifications.

> Agreed that it is a good goal to go towards, but it I only find that it
> would be a hindrance upon those who seek an MCDST to even begin
> considering this sort of layered research.

I have heard of people playing with "Virtual Networks" in virtual server and
set up entire networks within a single machine, don't know if this helps
towards MCDST, but it should be a nice emulation environment for anyone
interested in networks. The time it take to set up will pay off later
because virtualization will be a part of most systems in a couple of years,
anyway.

> best study methods

I know nothing of this, but in my view, you should not be locked in on any
certification, but go towards knowledge. Virtualization is now mature and a
natural way of testing any systems (except real-time and disconnected
systems and other systems with unusual metrics).

G.

"Gorm Braarvig" <> wrote in
news:#l$:

>> The only reason I'm replying to this is to point out how off-topic
>> the points are that you make. I honestly see no reason why someone
>> should use VMWARE or Virtual PC v* for an MCDST certification unless
>> they are mentally inept. The test does not require any sort of
>> debugging or beta-testing experience, nor an environment to emulate
>> such.
>
> I don't see the connection between virtualization and
> debugging/beta-testing, neither, I suspect, will you in the not so
> distant future
>

This right here proves that you're an idiot. Virtualization of a server is
NOT required, nor is virutalization of an Microsoft OS. Please go complain
in the developers NG or in the microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse NG, not the
MCDST newsgroup.

>> What I've found for _most_ people that I've helped pass the MCDST
>> certification is a lack of understanding with TCP/IP. There is no
>> reason to even worry about a 64-bit environment because at the moment
>> this test is not about Windows: Vista nor about Windows Server 2k*.
>
> The reason for the 64-bit is that if you shall install Exchange, you
> will in the future (E12) be forced to use 64-bit, don't know if that
> applies to anything. Yet.
>

There are NO Exchange questions on the MCDST exam. The 64-bit architecture
has nothing to do with understanding how to support a desktop. Go study
the MCDST and you'll find out how off-topic you really are.

>> Are those who now seek MCDST status a member of MSDN, MCT, or a MS:
>> Beta Tester? Probably not because if they are a member of MSDN, MCT,
>> or a MS Beta Tester, they probably already have the certification.
>
> Well, this is not true of me, I have no certifications at all, and
> many questions on beta-newsgroups gives an impression of being asked
> by non-experts, (I, myself lack basic network-knowledge), so I can't
> agree with you here. MSDN (Professional/Universal) is for sale and
> requires no certifications.

Wow. You're special. And you completely didn't read what I said either.
I pointed out that there was a vast majority of those who attained this
certification when it came out because they had the chance to beta test the
actual exam. On the other hand, this isn't a beta NG. This is a
certification NG towards an MCDST. Let me spell that out for you,
MICROSOFT CERTIFIED DESKTOP SUPPORT TECHNICIAN. Relevance? None.

>> Agreed that it is a good goal to go towards, but it I only find that
>> it would be a hindrance upon those who seek an MCDST to even begin
>> considering this sort of layered research.
>
> I have heard of people playing with "Virtual Networks" in virtual
> server and set up entire networks within a single machine, don't know
> if this helps towards MCDST, but it should be a nice emulation
> environment for anyone interested in networks. The time it take to set
> up will pay off later because virtualization will be a part of most
> systems in a couple of years, anyway.

Ok, again, this isn't the N+ exam. If you read the subject for TCP/IP on
the 70-271 it says this: "Managing and Troubleshooting Network Protocols
and Services". VERY SIMPLE COMMAND PROMPT COMMANDS. Ping. IPconfig. The
switches that go with them. The basic network connection windows and a bit
indepth. You don't have to learn how to discern what the IP Address is on
a subnet mask of 168.196.15.156, but you do have to learn what class that
subnet is.

> I know nothing of this, but in my view, you should not be locked in on
> any certification, but go towards knowledge. Virtualization is now
> mature and a natural way of testing any systems (except real-time and
> disconnected systems and other systems with unusual metrics).

Maybe so. But certifications in their correct respect are proving that you
have that knowledge. Again on the virtualization rant. THIS IS NOT NEEDED
FOR AN MCDST CERTIFICATION. You're not toying with any servers, just a
simple desktop. Maybe you're like an advocate for VMWARE or the sales
guy...but really, is your confusion needed in this NG?

--
Lasher
MCNGP 110010
MCP/MCDST/MVMCHA
(Most Valuable Microsoft Certified Head Asploder)