Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:  
Summary: Good book but you need more -- This exam is not a breeze so please do not under estimate
Comment: First, I appeared for MCTS 70-529 (Distributed Applications) and I was able to clear in the very first attempt with 856 score -- not an easy one as it covers complex topics. Then I attempted MCTS 70-536 thinking that it is easier than 70-529. But definitely not an easy one either and I got a score of 771. It is voluminous and a beast as it covers lots of topics, right from types to code access security, collections, threading, interoperability, serialization, instrumentation, internationalization and more.
As you can imagine, a single book is not enough. You need to consult MSDN documentation heavily and frequently as most methods are overloaded with so many variations. And plus I suggest some other question bank (such as transcender, measure up, etc) in addition to the ones provided with the book. Question bank provided with book is good but not enough to cover all the tricks.
You can skip other question banks only if you are extremely .NET savvy. Which I suppose many people will not have exposure to so many topics in their careers does not matter with how many years of IT experience.
This exam is definitely not a breeze. So please prepare seriously if you intend to gain knowledge and pass this exam.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Most misunderstood .NET book ever published
Comment: If you have read the reviews, this book is controversial to say the least. Issue #1: there are errors. True, however in my opinion, given the scope of the book and the number of contributors, errors were inevitable. Also note Microsoft has most of the errata documented on their support web site.
Assuming you're ok with fixing up a book with the published errata sheet, the next thing you may have a problem with: this book alone will not prepare you for the 70-536 exam. Sorry.
That is more of an indication of the difficulty of the exam than the quality of the book. The simple fact is no other book will prepare you for the 70-536. This is the only one, and does a commendable job, all things considered.
I put up four stars because I like this book. It is logically structured, and easy to follow. I liked the step-by-step examples and the labs. I actually learned a few things about .NET cryptography, code access security, and serialization. Even if you're not interested in the exam, this is a good book to learn the framework.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Good book
Comment: Very good book to start your preparation.
But still lot of details are not covered up that
are important for the exam, making MSDN a must along with this book.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Useful informatioin but real bad explanations
Comment: Actually I am editing my oppinion after reading this book almost three times now ... The silly typos and mistakes over the book are a fact, however I'd like to say that I really learnt a lot with the book, and overall found it very useful.
I missunderstood the focus of the book, and expected more of a "how to do" book, when really it is a logical and structured list (withouth to going into too much depht) of the .NET Frameworks features. After reading simpler books, and with a bit more experience developing in .NET, I actually went back to read it again and found it very very useful.
In my oppinion a lof of people commit the same mistake as I did, and expect more of a learning book, than a proper study guide.
Customer Rating:
Summary: This Book + Transcender = 1 Easy Exam
Comment: The following are my pointers about the book and exam. I hope they'll help calm someone's nerves, because I was a nervous wreck before my exam yesterday.
First, about me:
> I studied in earnest for three weeks, using only the book and accompanying practice exams until the last three days
> I used Transcender during the last three days, and never scored above 60% on the full practice exam
> I am relatively new to .NET (four months exp. writing production-level apps), but not new to software development (working with Java for over four years)
> I passed the exam yesterday, on the first attempt, with a score of 859
With that said...
1. To anyone sadistic enough to take a Java cert exam (like my moronic self), the MCTS is a cakewalk. Unlike the ferocious Java exams which try to bait you into picking the wrong answers, 70-536 seems to do the exact opposite. I'll elaborate on this in point 2.
2. Remember taking the SATs and being given the advice to first eliminate clearly wrong answers before analyzing the ones that might be right? Do that on this exam, and you'll immediately cut your answer choices in half on nearly every question. For the vast majority of the questions, Microsoft practically GIVES you the answer - almost like they're trying to sell you on how intuitive their framework is. These questions are multiple choice, with one answer choice being cartoonishly incorrect, another answer being kind-of-correct but clearly too convoluted, then two or more other answers that are extremely similar, except for some minor detail.
3. You do not need to go into the MSDN and know every object mentioned in the book like Adam knew his wife. You should, however, be very familiar with the methods and signatures of Stream objects, Serializer objects (XMLSerializer, especially), AppDomain, and Culture/Region Info. As for the rest, just pay close attention to the methods and objects used in the book's examples.
4. The Transcender exam is WAAAAAAAAAAAY HARDER than the actual 70-536.
5. The MeasureUp exam that comes with the book is slightly easier than the actual 70-536.
6. On my particular exam, there were no questions whose material hadn't been covered by the book. Be careful, though, because from the Transcender exams it seems the book's authors left out at whole lot about interoperability.
Seriously folks, this exam isn't that bad if you're a seasoned software pro and familiar with OOP. Get a solid grasp of the stuff in the book (the labs really help), use Transcender for some details that the book misses, take the exam, and pass that sucker.
Good luck!
|
|
|
