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

Discussion in 'MCSD' started by Richard Deal, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. Richard Deal

    Richard Deal Guest

    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 () 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
    Richard Deal, Nov 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard Deal

    Ken Briscoe Guest

    Because someone might answer you the third time...

    --

    KB - MCNGP #26

    first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com
    Ken Briscoe, Nov 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard Deal

    Frank Crow Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:uQDrb.60172$...
    > 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 () 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
    >
    >
    Frank Crow, Dec 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Richard Deal

    ¢harlie Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:cYQzb.65792$U%...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:uQDrb.60172$...
    > > 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 () 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
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    ¢harlie, Dec 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Richard Deal

    jeremyn Guest

    Re: I am looking for test authors to write preparation tests forMicrosoft exams

    The only good things to come out of Microsoft are MAPI, TAPI, and the
    original OLE2.
    jeremyn, Dec 9, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard Deal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    Richard Deal
    Nov 10, 2003
  2. Richard Deal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    Richard Deal
    Nov 10, 2003
  3. Richard Deal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Richard Deal
    Nov 10, 2003
  4. Frank Crow
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    463
    jeremyn
    Dec 9, 2003
  5. Richard Deal
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    283
    jeremyn
    Dec 9, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page