70-270
70-271
70-272
70-290
70-291
70-293
70-294
which gives me MCDST and MCSA. I would like to confirm the last exam I need
to get MCSE? Is it 70-297?
Many thanks,
Jon.
70-297 =or= 70-298 is a required Design exam, but it appears to me that you
still require an Elective Exam, also.
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/mcse.aspx#tab2
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
I thought the MCDST could stand as an elective?
"John R" wrote:
>
> "Jon" <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:789AC4EE-BF74-45B2...@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks Lawrence.
> >
> > I thought the MCDST could stand as an elective?
> >
>
> MCDST satisfies the elective requirement for MCSA, but not MCSE. I guess
> Microsoft doesn't expect MCDST duties to be among those of an MCSE even
> though in most smaller shops, the network admins most likely are also the
> helpdesk. It's one of those conundrum thingys.
>
> John R
>
>
"Jon" <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:789AC4EE-BF74-45B2...@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Lawrence.
>
> I thought the MCDST could stand as an elective?
>
MCDST satisfies the elective requirement for MCSA, but not MCSE. I guess
"Jon" <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9D6B6A5F-693D-4D08...@microsoft.com...
>I read that my MCDST was an elective for the MCSA, so what other exams am I
> looking at completing to get my MCSE?
>
Come on Jon... click on the link that Lawrence gave you, click on 'View MCSE
Requirements'.
John R
"Jon" <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:26EF9F5C-5687-4F95...@microsoft.com...
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4202 (20090630) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4202 (20090630) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
Not exactly. 70-290 is a core exam for both the MCSA and MCSE. 70-294 is
a core exam for the MCSE only. You need much more than those two exams
alone though.
--
Chris.
"arsham" <mohsen.far...@live.com> wrote in message
news:52552190-D3D9-4247...@microsoft.com...
> 70-290 means you are MCSA and 70-294 means MCSE...I think
>
No, 70-290 means the test "Managing and Maintaining a Microosft Windows
Server 2003 Environment", and 70-294 means the test "Planning, Implementing,
and Maintaining a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Active Directory
Infrastructure". They are simply test numbers, not certifications in and of
themselves.
70-290 is required for MCSA, but there are also several other requirements.
70-294 is required for MCSE, but there are also several other requirements,
including 70-290.
John R
No. See Lawrence's original response. He still needs an elective.
John R
Unfortunately, no. You do need the 70-297 (or the 70-298) to meed the Design
Exam requirement,
but it also appears that you are lacking the required Elective Exam.
You'll need to check here to determine where your interest lies for the
Elective Exam:
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/mcse.aspx#tab2
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
>> Yes
Yeah.. and next time "anderson"...
Please appropriately clip/quote your replies.
I entirely missed that this was a repy to a ten week old, already answered
(correctly, I might add) message, and totally missed your one-word
(incorrect, I'll reiterate) answer - for all the "noise" you left in your
message surrounding your one-word (incorrect) answer.
I thought this was a *NEW* message, and replied appropriately. (Maybe it's
better I didn't realize you were posting to a ten week old
already-answered-correctly message with an incorrect answer, or I might
likely have been much less courteous than I'm being at this particular
moment.
[Thank you John R for noticing the incorrect reply to the old post -- which
I see, was about five minutes before I posted my long-winded (and
unnecessarily re-researched) answer. ARrrggghhh.... now I gotta go take a
chill-pill so I can finish replying to other, more productive, posts.]