RE: 70-297 Fail
- From: Pete Jones <PeteJones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:54:01 -0800
I did 298, which follows the same format. I enjoyed it, because it is a good
reflection of what I encounter when working. I am given a brief, and have to
make technical recommendations based on the information there.
Really it is a case of knowing the information well, and being able to pick
out the relevant points. Things like "some clients are still running Windows
95/98", or "we have some legacy applications running on an NT4 server", tell
you that you can't use specific methods, and will have to use (usually) less
secure ones. If you recommend the more secure, but incompatible ones, some
clients will not be able to connect, and in the exam as in life, that is an
epic fail on your part.
I think the best thing you can do is try and learn all the pitfalls, caveats
and gotchas when designing AD in relation to NT and 2000, Domain and Forest
functional levels and FSMO roles.
Give it a week or so of cramming all that in your head and try again.
BTW, you did Second Shot, right?
"Chris M" wrote:
Took 297 today... failed with 601 :-(
Horrible exam, very little time to spare on each case study... finished
with seconds to spare on one of them!
Back to the books then. Any advice on good techniques for this beast of
- 70-297 Fail
- From: Chris M
- 70-297 Fail
- Prev by Date: RE: 70-291: DHCP 20/80 rule
- Next by Date: RE: 70-291: DHCP 20/80 rule
- Previous by thread: 70-297 Fail
- Next by thread: Re: 70-297 Fail