I just did the 290 today with 4 simulations - and they were quite good.
Enough that I used one sim to help answer another multiple choice question.
What I found interesting is that they don't leave you enough rope to hang
yourself. Because the sim essentially only allows the valid settings and
changes, I thought it was pretty hard to miss out on doing the required
elements. One of the sims did seem a bit broken in that the settings didn't
look like they were updating but when I would go back to the place the change
were made they were there. I got by and that is what counts today.
I think Chris's reply was very well written and quite insightful.
"Kurt Hudson" wrote:
> Congratulations on passing your simualation exams.
> Although I passed as well, I wouldn't go as far as saying
> they are okay. As a matter of fact, I think what you are
> saying is actually a problem. Don't assume that just
> because a simulation works a certain way that is "the
> Microsoft way" because there is no such thing. There are
> only best practices, and poor practices. The rest of it is
> just the way the operating system works. Since the
> simulations don't really work like the interface, you are
> essentially required to perform the flash animation
> according to what the test writers and interface
> programmers anticipated that you would try to do. So, in
> fact, it seems possible that you could get penalized for
> doing something that would work just fine, but that the
> test writers didn't consider. I don't think that makes it
> good enough, yet.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I took both the 290 and 291 exams and passed them both,
> with simulations.
> >
> >Since the NDA doesn't allow discussion of the details,
> I'll take my cue from
> >the ExamCram books and write in terms of test taking
> strategy. (Quick note
> >on them... I did get the lifetime MS subscription thing
> from them, and that
> >was with the knowledge that they have many errors, and
> several of their
> >questions have exactly the wrong answers... However, in
> going through their
> >explanations, it became clear what was wrong, and I
> learned anyway. The
> >concepts behind the questions were never irrelevant. I
> do wish they didn't
> >have those errors, and were more comprehensive in their
> coverage... But
> >they've gotten me through 3 tests as my only study aid so
> far.)
> >
> >
> >There was one simulation that involved interaction
> between several systems,
> >and I had to perform a task that affected that
> interaction (vague enough?),
> >but the lead-in to the simulation didn't tell me which
> computer I was
> >performing the task on, nor did it give me the tools to
> figure out the name
> >of the machine I was on. However, knowing this,
> rereading the scenario, and
> >making critically evaluating the likelyhood of what tools
> I had available to
> >me made it clear which machine I was on. There was only
> one that would
> >likely have the tools if things were setup the proper
> Microsoft way.
> >
> >
> >In another simulation, I was told that I had already set
> the system up a
> >certain way, but needed to make some changes. When
> looking at the
> >simulation, the "way I set it up" was not actually the
> way it was setup. I
> >didn't know if I was to fix both what "I set up" and what
> the exercise
> >wanted.
> >
> >In my scenario thinking: "Why is what I setup not
> actually the way it is
> >setup?" "One of the other techs must have changed things
> without going
> >through proper change control notification..."
> >
> >I went with the assumption that I needed to set the
> precondition up (ie, fix
> >what the "other tech" did), and from there implement the
> required changes.
> >(I did give some feedback on this one. I hope it was a
> beta question)
> >
> >
> >There was also one question that was on an area I had
> totally skipped in
> >preparation, and had never used before in my professional
> experience. There
> >was a momentary "deer in the headlights" issue.
> Fortunately it was, you
> >guessed it, a simulation. I was able to figure out what
> I needed to do by
> >how good the simulation was. (The fact that some things
> were not simulated
> >gave important clues as what they expected to be done)
> In the end, I
> >learned something useful. Coincidentally, I had a
> question at work about
> >the very action the following week. =-)
> >
> >
> >Now that we have an idea what my experience was like,
> here's my opinion.
> >Take with appropriate quantities of salt.
> >
> >
> >All in all, I liked the simulations. They actually made
> the exam easier for
> >me. I can see how they could be limiting or throw you
> off, but like most of
> >the books say, it comes down to test taking strategy.
> >
> >It is true that in the real world you can usually ask
> clarifying questions,
> >but we know going into this, that the test is not the
> real world.
> >
> >
> >I don't see the MCSE cert as stating "I can make Windows
> work", I see it as
> >saying "I can work Windows as Microsoft intends". To
> that end, the
> >simulations are actually a helpful tool, as if you get
> too far astray from
> >how they say to do it, you know you're wrong and can
> start over.
> >
> >Imagine if your car is making a knocking sound, and the
> mechanic "fixes" it
> >by strapping a steel cable around a loose part to another
> part. Maybe the
> >manufacturer has a procedure for fixing this that
> involves replacing the
> >loose part. Both approaches solve the problem, but I
> can't see the
> >manufacturer certifying the first solution.
> >
> >I do have issues with how some of the questions were
> written, but that was
> >independent of the actual simulation environment. I had
> the same issues
> >with some of the multiple choice questions as well. I
> had these same issues
> >taking the CompTIA exams (the 8 that I did take/pass), as
> well as the SATs,
> >and even essay questions in high school history. This is
> a weakness in the
> >concept of testing in general that they can continue to
> improve on, and I
> >suspect that's part of why the passing score is 700, and
> not 850 or some
> >higher number.
> >
> >
> >As I said above, take what I say with a grain of salt.
> It's one person's
> >view on two tests.
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >On 4/22/05 5:29 AM, in article 14e401c54736$ee172ef0
> $,
> >"Kurt" <> wrote:
> >
> >> You probably should wait until you hear that the
> >> simulations are working (or have been removed) before
> you
> >> try to pass the exam. Right now it looks like you will
> >> probably fail if you attempt the exam with the broken
> >> simulations.
> >
> >.
> >
>
