MCSE Cert. Is it still worth it?

I'm working on my MCSE certification. I'm already MCP certified and I'm
studying for the SQL 70-028 exam. I want to do more software development,
maybe some web-based application development. Should I finish the MCSE or
should I just jump into learning programming languages and get certified in
those.

lemme know.

--
often imitated, never duplicated
niq

pheonix1t
Mon Nov 03 12:37:15 CST 2003

Dominique Feteau wrote:
> I'm working on my MCSE certification. I'm already MCP certified and I'm
> studying for the SQL 70-028 exam. I want to do more software development,
> maybe some web-based application development. Should I finish the MCSE or
> should I just jump into learning programming languages and get certified in
> those.
>
> lemme know.
>
the 028 test is for sql 7....that's old already, due to be phased out
very soon!
If I were you, get the books for the .NET (VB and C#) and learn these
instead. Also, learn Java, this is VERY important. (.NET is an attempt
to copy the Java tech. and concepts but keeping it DEPENDANT on MS
products....the complete opposite of Java's goal which is to be platform
independant. Microsoft is the ONLY IT vendor that doesn't support Java,
IBM, HP, SUN, BEA, Sybase, Oracle, etc, etc......Most if not all of the
major IT vendors provide strong support for Java, Microsoft is the only
one that doesn't do so - instead it came up with .NET in an attempt to
keep and extend it's monopoly business practices).
Scripting languages are also good to know.
PHP on linux is very powerful and getting extremely popular, it gives
ASP a run for it's money and its FREE! Macromedia's Coldfusion is also
another very powerful platform to learn for doing systems integration
and web application development. XML goes without saying....


good luck,

Oskar

Kline
Mon Nov 03 16:55:29 CST 2003

>instead it came up with .NET in an attempt to
>keep and extend it's monopoly business practices

Which is the goal of every company, to create a monopoly.

pheonix1t
Mon Nov 03 22:10:21 CST 2003

Kline Sphere wrote:
>>instead it came up with .NET in an attempt to
>>keep and extend it's monopoly business practices
>
>
> Which is the goal of every company, to create a monopoly.
if that is the goal...then why do all the other vendors support Java?
IBM is certainly big enough to have it's own application server, it's
own databases, it's own hardware, it's own operating systems, etc. They
could definately have made their own proprietary version of Java or
something like it (that runs only on IBM products, like .NET for
microsoft)...but they didn't! Neither did any of the other major IT
vendors.
The truth is .Net is a scam by Microsoft...but that is another topic for
another day. If you're like the typical brain-dead microsoft drone, you
won't question anything mickeysoft tells you...you believe every word
they say. (Even though there are mountains of evidence to prove
microsoft's word is worthless...for example, their "sponsored"
benchmarks - these benchmarks are usually laughed at and aren't
considered credible by most respectable journalists and labs)

Kline
Tue Nov 04 12:30:43 CST 2003

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I would not say dot net is a scam,
it's just a way of marketing a different way to do the same think.

BTW, I never understood why IBM never blew 'mickeysoft' out of the
water in the early 90's. Microsoft back then produced [really] crap
software, it was so bad, that had they [microsoft] been producing cars
they would have been taken to the cleaners by the number of lawsuit's
filed against them.


On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 04:10:21 GMT, pheonix1t
<dangeru98dousdt@ATsbcglobal.DOTnet> wrote:

>Kline Sphere wrote:
>>>instead it came up with .NET in an attempt to
>>>keep and extend it's monopoly business practices
>>
>>
>> Which is the goal of every company, to create a monopoly.
>if that is the goal...then why do all the other vendors support Java?
>IBM is certainly big enough to have it's own application server, it's
>own databases, it's own hardware, it's own operating systems, etc. They
>could definately have made their own proprietary version of Java or
>something like it (that runs only on IBM products, like .NET for
>microsoft)...but they didn't! Neither did any of the other major IT
>vendors.
>The truth is .Net is a scam by Microsoft...but that is another topic for
>another day. If you're like the typical brain-dead microsoft drone, you
>won't question anything mickeysoft tells you...you believe every word
>they say. (Even though there are mountains of evidence to prove
>microsoft's word is worthless...for example, their "sponsored"
>benchmarks - these benchmarks are usually laughed at and aren't
>considered credible by most respectable journalists and labs)
>
>
>
>