|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.mcse > November 2002 > Failed 216....
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Ivor Nothingtosay 2002-11-16, 7:24 am |
| I've just failed 216 and a bit pissed off. I passed 210, 215 just over
three weeks ago and thought this exam would be a breeze (I was wrong).
I did all the right things study wise and thought I was up to scratch
(not). But, better luck next week!!!
Anyway here are my recommendations to any of you MCSE starters...
Study for 210, 215 and 216 at the same time. It gives you a better
understanding of w2k procedures.
Don't rely on CBT nuggets or Learnkey, they give you a good grounding
but miss an awful lot of key issues that you come up against in the
exam(s).
Read Sybex book(s) these books get you through the exam(s)... They are
really good.
Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
appear in the exam and that is the truth).
Trancenders, I found were actually harder than the real exams on 210,
215. Unfortunately I do not have a transcender for 216...
Everyone knows you will never be in some of the scenarios that you are
questioned about within the exams but you do need sound practical
knowledge and that is a must have attribute.
And finally:-
I am an MCSE NT4 and no matter what anyone says MCSE w2k exam(s) are a
lot harder and require a lot more aptitude for the subject. Although I
did take 059 exam three times (I just couldn't get my head around that
f**king exam)
Thanks
Ivor
| |
|
| So you used braindumps and still failed? Sheesh.
"Ivor Nothingtosay" <spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com...
> I've just failed 216 and a bit pissed off. I passed 210, 215 just over
> three weeks ago and thought this exam would be a breeze (I was wrong).
> I did all the right things study wise and thought I was up to scratch
> (not). But, better luck next week!!!
>
> Anyway here are my recommendations to any of you MCSE starters...
>
> Study for 210, 215 and 216 at the same time. It gives you a better
> understanding of w2k procedures.
>
> Don't rely on CBT nuggets or Learnkey, they give you a good grounding
> but miss an awful lot of key issues that you come up against in the
> exam(s).
>
> Read Sybex book(s) these books get you through the exam(s)... They are
> really good.
>
> Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
> appear in the exam and that is the truth).
>
> Trancenders, I found were actually harder than the real exams on 210,
> 215. Unfortunately I do not have a transcender for 216...
>
> Everyone knows you will never be in some of the scenarios that you are
> questioned about within the exams but you do need sound practical
> knowledge and that is a must have attribute.
>
>
> And finally:-
>
> I am an MCSE NT4 and no matter what anyone says MCSE w2k exam(s) are a
> lot harder and require a lot more aptitude for the subject. Although I
> did take 059 exam three times (I just couldn't get my head around that
> f**king exam)
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivor
| |
| Tony Davis 2002-11-16, 11:24 am |
| And worse yet he admited it LOL
"none" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:c9uB9.14751$ka.462269@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> So you used braindumps and still failed? Sheesh.
>
> "Ivor Nothingtosay" <spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com...
> > I've just failed 216 and a bit pissed off. I passed 210, 215 just over
> > three weeks ago and thought this exam would be a breeze (I was wrong).
> > I did all the right things study wise and thought I was up to scratch
> > (not). But, better luck next week!!!
> >
> > Anyway here are my recommendations to any of you MCSE starters...
> >
> > Study for 210, 215 and 216 at the same time. It gives you a better
> > understanding of w2k procedures.
> >
> > Don't rely on CBT nuggets or Learnkey, they give you a good grounding
> > but miss an awful lot of key issues that you come up against in the
> > exam(s).
> >
> > Read Sybex book(s) these books get you through the exam(s)... They are
> > really good.
> >
> > Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
> > appear in the exam and that is the truth).
> >
> > Trancenders, I found were actually harder than the real exams on 210,
> > 215. Unfortunately I do not have a transcender for 216...
> >
> > Everyone knows you will never be in some of the scenarios that you are
> > questioned about within the exams but you do need sound practical
> > knowledge and that is a must have attribute.
> >
> >
> > And finally:-
> >
> > I am an MCSE NT4 and no matter what anyone says MCSE w2k exam(s) are a
> > lot harder and require a lot more aptitude for the subject. Although I
> > did take 059 exam three times (I just couldn't get my head around that
> > f**king exam)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ivor
>
>
| |
| Paul E Larson 2002-11-16, 4:24 pm |
| spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com (Ivor Nothingtosay) wrote in
news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com:
>
> Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
> appear in the exam and that is the truth).
>
Pleeeaaaasssee..... I don't know about testking but Cramsessions, if we are
refering to the same item, are Study Guides(condensed overviews of
information needed to pass the test) NOT braindumps(garbage pages of might
be test questions with maybe correct answers). There is a world of
difference.
Paul
| |
| Paul E Larson 2002-11-16, 4:24 pm |
| "none" <fake@fake.com> wrote in news:c9uB9.14751$ka.462269
@news1.calgary.shaw.ca:
> So you used braindumps and still failed? Sheesh.
>
Sounds more like he named, at least the Cramsessions one, worng. Should
have been Study Guides.
| |
| 70-228 2002-11-16, 6:24 pm |
| Paul E Larson wrote:
> spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com (Ivor Nothingtosay) wrote in
> news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com:
>> Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
>> appear in the exam and that is the truth).
>>
>
> Pleeeaaaasssee..... I don't know about testking but Cramsessions, if
And it's testking that are braindumps you pay for so the rest of your post
isn't really relevant.
> we are refering to the same item, are Study Guides(condensed
> overviews of information needed to pass the test) NOT
> braindumps(garbage pages of might be test questions with maybe
> correct answers). There is a world of difference.
Bah you silly chap :-). We all (well I thought all of us) know Cramsession
study guides are fine. Surprised you didn't guess that the testking might be
the dodgy one of the two....
| |
| Rob Hammersmith 2002-11-18, 1:25 pm |
| And even worse yet, he recommends them after admitting to using them and
failing.
"Tony Davis" <tdavis93@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GuuB9.110317$dn3.4815040@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> And worse yet he admited it LOL
> "none" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
> news:c9uB9.14751$ka.462269@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > So you used braindumps and still failed? Sheesh.
> >
> > "Ivor Nothingtosay" <spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com...
> > > I've just failed 216 and a bit pissed off. I passed 210, 215 just over
> > > three weeks ago and thought this exam would be a breeze (I was wrong).
> > > I did all the right things study wise and thought I was up to scratch
> > > (not). But, better luck next week!!!
> > >
> > > Anyway here are my recommendations to any of you MCSE starters...
> > >
> > > Study for 210, 215 and 216 at the same time. It gives you a better
> > > understanding of w2k procedures.
> > >
> > > Don't rely on CBT nuggets or Learnkey, they give you a good grounding
> > > but miss an awful lot of key issues that you come up against in the
> > > exam(s).
> > >
> > > Read Sybex book(s) these books get you through the exam(s)... They are
> > > really good.
> > >
> > > Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
> > > appear in the exam and that is the truth).
> > >
> > > Trancenders, I found were actually harder than the real exams on 210,
> > > 215. Unfortunately I do not have a transcender for 216...
> > >
> > > Everyone knows you will never be in some of the scenarios that you are
> > > questioned about within the exams but you do need sound practical
> > > knowledge and that is a must have attribute.
> > >
> > >
> > > And finally:-
> > >
> > > I am an MCSE NT4 and no matter what anyone says MCSE w2k exam(s) are a
> > > lot harder and require a lot more aptitude for the subject. Although I
> > > did take 059 exam three times (I just couldn't get my head around that
[colo
r=darkred]
> > > f**king exam)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ivor
> >
> >
>
>[/color]
| |
| Rob Hammersmith 2002-11-18, 1:25 pm |
| You and Paul said the exact same thing, yet you appear to be trying to
disagree with him.
"70-228" <Mackel@Drak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gMAB9.475609$Q5.57959@post-03.news.easynews.com...
> Paul E Larson wrote:
> > spiraltribe2002@yahoo.com (Ivor Nothingtosay) wrote in
> > news:33c84b70.0211160448.af6a2fe@posting.google.com:
> >> Use testking and Cramsession braindumps (a lot of the questions do
> >> appear in the exam and that is the truth).
> >>
> >
> > Pleeeaaaasssee..... I don't know about testking but Cramsessions, if
>
> And it's testking that are braindumps you pay for so the rest of your post
> isn't really relevant.
>
> > we are refering to the same item, are Study Guides(condensed
> > overviews of information needed to pass the test) NOT
> > braindumps(garbage pages of might be test questions with maybe
> > correct answers). There is a world of difference.
>
> Bah you silly chap :-). We all (well I thought all of us) know Cramsession
> study guides are fine. Surprised you didn't guess that the testking might
be
> the dodgy one of the two....
>
>
| |
| 70-228 2002-11-18, 2:24 pm |
| Rob Hammersmith wrote:
> You and Paul said the exact same thing, yet you appear to be trying to
> disagree with him.
Yeah I got totally mixed up with another thread and thought he was saying
something completely different to what he was *really* saying. My bad
reading :-)
Sorry Paul E. Larson!
| |
| Paul E Larson 2002-11-18, 2:24 pm |
| "70-228" <Mackel@Drak.co.uk> wrote in news:HqbC9.571264$Q5.69646@post-
03.news.easynews.com:
> Sorry Paul E. Larson!
No problem.
|
|
|
|
|