Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Books and Certifications?
ozTravman asks: "I have been doing my Microsoft MCSE exams, so far I have completed 70-270 and 79-290 and I am about to start preparing for 70-291 'Implementing, Managing, and Maintaining a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Network Infrastructure'. I currently work as a Systems Engineer and for the previous two tests I simply read the Microsoft Press books related to the test. However, I found those particular books to be quite useless and found that cramming for the test using Braindumps and practice exams the night before was far more effective and relevant to the test content. I did not even bother finishing the 70-290 book. So what books have other Slashdot readers have used to help them to prepare for these tests?"
You realize by using a braindump you are effectively cheating?!?
The perfect place to post your question. I do hope you have abestos gloves on!
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Minesweeper Certified Solitare Expert?
"Does your computer have IP on it?"
With all the training centers out there, if you pay them enough money, you'll pass the tests without ever working a day in the field.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
Many a true word spoken in jest!
One company I worked with displayed them at the front desk...is this the best use of them?
I'll admit that once upon a time I thought the MCSE was a really cool thing.
My first clue came really early on, when back in the days of the NT 4.0 exams, I bought the official books for server administration. Then I was working on installing a server for a company and realised that these books didn't cover even half the stuff I came across.
Nowadays, I use Linux at home, and have Windows 2000 at work. My boss apparently has some MCSE training, and yet I seem to know how to handle basic Windows stuff far better than he does. We have no sensible standard policy for installing workstations (fixed size pagefiles are a good idea), no fixed maintenance schedules aside from anti-virus (how many years have most of these people gone without a defrag?), and a load of thing using more/less default settings.
I've been looking at Novell's CLP and CLE certs myself, but primarily because I want the further education. They would qualify me to run systems for a quite small company, at least at first glance.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
The first thing I thought of after reading your question was the suicide booths from the pilot episode.
After all, I am strangely colored.
If these "certifications" really meant that you were competent to do suchandsuch, then there would be no cramming needed or possible. You can't "cram" to be an eye surgeon. You can't "cram" to be a helicopter pilot. Bascially, this just proves what I suspected all along, these certifications aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Or, more precicely, they are indeed worth the paper they are printed on because that is what you are actually paying for, not learning a skill..
But, hey, they cost money so somone makes out, and capitalisim is awesome, right? Ok, from now on, I am officially gonna be in the certification bidness. You need to be certified in something? Come to me. I gots me a laser printer and photoshop, and I guarantee that all of my certifications are fully accredited*. No exams, just pay the money!
*accreditied by the Me Accreditation Institute
If you have a degree in Engineering, why are you pursuing an MCSE?
Seriously, as an Engineer I despise it when the term is abused. The AMA and ABA would never allow Microsoft et alia to churn out "Microsoft Certified Systems Doctors" or "C# Lawyers" so why does the IEEE/SAE/etc. sit on their hands when the word "Engineer" is abused?
Not really.
Organization has x number of MCSEs.
Company now is a "Solution Provider".
Microsoft sends work to your door. Large work.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
However, I found those particular books to be quite useless and found that cramming for the test using Braindumps and practice exams the night before was far more effective and relevant to the test content. I did not even bother finishing the 70-290 book.
The purpose of taking the exam is to pass it. Short of outright cheating, it doesn't matter how you pass it, only that you pass it.
It also doesn't matter whether you retain any of the knowledge afterwards: ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT YOU RECEIVE THE SHEEPSKIN.*
I'm with you: Purchase the practice exams, and study backwards from there, i.e. investigate the theory behind only those questions you can't answer correctly a priori.
*If you are wondering, the purpose of the sheepskin is to help you get your foot in the door, or, if you're already inside, to help in justifying a raise in salary [and maybe a promotion to a more chi-chi sounding job title].
Yeah, certifications mean nothing to people who know anything about the craft of software engineering. That right there tells you why you'd bother getting them. I've just started with a consulting company, and they require their developers to get four certifications a year (and give a bonus for each one). It isn't because the certifications make the developers better, but because it makes them more marketable to potential clients who know neither jack nor shit about software. The only criteria those potential clients have to judge a consulting company on are 1) case studies of previous projects, and 2) arbitrary measures of skill like "90% of our developers hold MCSE certifications."
Forget for the moment that you know anything about software development. Forget that you give a damn about the differences between C#, Java, C, and Perl. Forget that you actually comprehend why an object-oriented programming paradigm benefits certain kinds of software projects. You're just a guy at some company who has a business or even liberal arts degree, who understands just enough about computers to expect email to be sent and received by Outlook, and who has been tasked with replacing/upgrading some mission-critical software system by the end of the fiscal year. How do you judge who should do the work? You know all the computers at work run Microsoft [sic]. You are told by these consulting companies who are bidding on your project that the M in MCSE stands for Microsoft. You figure that's got to be good, so the company with the most MCSE thud factor sounds the best, especially if their bid is near the lowest.
That's how business is conducted in the real world. This also applies to hiring developers internally. I refer you to Paul Graham's essay on how it takes a good hacker to know a good hacker. For those unfortunate companies who do not have good hackers in their employ to judge the quality of potential developer employees/contractors, the certifications are the next best thing (however sad that may be).
I don't have any certifications at the moment, but I expect to have an MCSE within a year or so. I need to know the material so I can do my job, and that will come by actually doing it. I also need to know the material well enough to pass the tests, and for that I recommend hitting the library. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy books for this crap if I can possibly avoid it. My colleagues at this company recommend the Exam Cram series, but I found MCAD/MCSD Self-Paced Training books (from Microsoft Press) at my library, so that's what I'm using.
"... I simply read the Microsoft Press books related to the test. However, I found those particular books to be quite useless..."
Thank you for saying that. It's good to see the relative uselessness of Microsoft publications be discussed publically.
When I try to analyze why MS books and web sites are so useless, I come to the conclusion it is because they are written with the philosophy that most important issue is the ease of the writers, not the ease of the readers.
I suppose that Microsoft writers and editors think "Why try harder?" Anything they publish will be sold to people who don't have enough expertise in the subject of the book to realize that the book is very scattered and that it leaves out important information.
For example, consider the file encryption in Windows XP, called EFS, Encryping File System. EFS is very poorly documented. The encryption is tied to the user's password in a way that is apparently not documented. EFS depends on being part of a Windows 2003 Server domain in a way that is not clearly documented; if you are using Windows XP on a stand alone computer, there are situations in which you can lose your files forever, even if you have made all the backups suggested in the Microsoft books and web sites.
(Microsoft Technical Support agrees with what I just said, and provides no help or workarounds.)
The official Microsoft forums contain complaints of many people who have lost their files due to problems with EFS.
--
If your gov't chose killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.
I have my NT 4.0 certs, and because back then, getting a Microsoft cert meant you could read a book and/or memorize the Transcender tests which were the exact same question with "Bob" substituted in for "Sally."
Recently, I did some work with some third party engineers on a few projects, and was surprised to find that they, like many companies, will not hire non-MCSAs these days. I did some additional research, and found this to be true - the certs are MUCH harder to get these days than they used to be, and the majority of the companies I called said that certs was a "make or break" when they reviewed resumes.
Here at Slashdot, you'll get a thousand idiots making fun of Microsoft, telling you to use Linux, and saying your MCSE isn't worth shit.
Let me dispell that rumor: THEY ARE WRONG. Don't listen to them, their knowledge is VERY outdated. Get your MCSE - it will mean a better job and higher pay, no matter what anyone here tells you.
These little red books ar the best books out there. As for reading the Braindumps, I myself have read those over from time to time. Here's the math on the exams, from what I've noticed and been told. The number might not be correct but they are close as each exam is a little unique in there numbers. There is a total of 600 questions they can ask you for the exams, so say there is only six topics that divides up into 100 selectable questions for each topic. Now in each topic there is 10 questions. So each time you do the exam you get a 1/10 chances of seeing the same question. The point is, if you can read and remember 600 questions and assume that braindump has all those questions and all the questions are correct.. Then all the power to you. The real reason any MCP exam is worth anything, is to get your foot into the job interview. Seeing a MCSE 2000 or even a MCSE 2003 certification means they are serious about working in the IT field and they are not just some joe who likes computers and spends all his spare time talking on IM with people he will never meet and thinks he knows it all about computers. Any REAL computer/network experince comes from doing it and not READing about it.+
You're already have access to servers and a network. Use it. Practice working on the skills that are listed in the test objectives. If you can't or don't want to do this on you companies network, set up a lab at home. (at least 2 servers, recommend VMWare or Virtual PC to get a more systems going, if you want)
The MS Press books are ok but they don't spoon-feed you. Sybex books are also good. You'll get the most out of them is you spend time applying what you learned in the lab.
Avoid Braindumps. You goals should be to learn not just pass the test.
I recommend visiting the forum at Tek-Tips for more advice on certifications.
Good Luck
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Unfortunately, yes, that is the best use for them. Today, to get a job in many places, these worthless certs are required. So why NOT cheat with testing aids? If these things are worthless as skill indicators but still needed to land a PAYING gig, than there is still value in having them.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
/.er's make fun of Microsoft because the MCSE is only helpful in getting a job and not really learning about computers.
This has been true for a long time, and has nothing to do with "outdated knowledge." By all means get certified if it gets your foot in the door. But if you want to enjoy using computers, use un*x when you can.
Anyone who doesn't know this already should not be entering the field at all, not debating what kind of certifications to get.
"Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper. Call that job satisfaction? I don't. " Marvin the robot
Actually Eye surgeons do cram, especially in pre-med. They're supposed to learn all about general anatomy and things that don't pertain to eye surgery. The "certification nonsense" is a problem in bureacracies everywhere. Oh well. Life, don't talk to me about life...
In an ideal world, yes. But if the primary goal of obtaining a cert is to get a better position with a company that for whatever reason requires MS certs, than I see no problem at all with braindumps and cramming.
Everyone around here says that MS certs are worthless as indicators of practical knowledge, so why mess around with anything that is not designed to help you pass in the quickest possible way? Of course knowing what you are doing is a good idea, but that's not why most people study for MS certs, and I'm not even sure it's why companies require MS certs.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
When hiring contractors or staff, if there is mention of MCSE, I file the resume into /dev/null.
When taking on clients, if they ask me for MCSE, I file them into...you guessed it.../dev/null.
I'm not saying that there is no practical de facto significance to them, just that, as the poster has realized, passing MCSE has little to do with actually understanding the material.
I was talking about people who did not lose their password or encryption certificates, obviously.
The problem is that Windows XP makes an additional password, one that is not backed up using any of the tools or documents provided. That automatically generated password is necessary, as well as the user account password, to decrypt the files.
If a computer is stand-alone, not part of a domain, then backing up everything, reformatting your hard drive, and reloading Windows XP will result in not having access to any of your EFS encrypted files.
The hidden, automatically generated password is not documented in any place that I was able to find. Microsoft Technical Support representatives agree with what I've said here.
The open source Truecrypt may be a far better choice, but I haven't tried it yet. Sourceforge hosts Truecrypt.
Spamming you with Windows crap that you didn't want in the first place.
Sure, use the Briandumps but when people ask you how hard was it to get your MCSE, just tell them "Easy, I just bought the anwsers."
Let me know how they react.
If there is one thing that devalues any certification, it is cheating.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
If someone else is paying, go for it. If not, spend your money more wisely on a cert that will actually test your knowledge and troubleshooting skills, instead of a cert that will have you parrot the M$ party line and give you *NO* actual technical knowledge at all.
I did my MCSA (never finished the MCSE - couldn't face those pointless design exams) and thought I knew loads. I have since discovered I knew *nothing*. In fact, I had to un-learn everything M$ had taught as I came to realise that the exams were nothing more than a tool to indoctrinate more people into the M$ party line, and to make loads more cash for M$.
I used to sysadmin at a company that sold IT training courses, and comparing the M$ stuff to...say...the Cisco or CompTIA stuff, it's ludicrous. Most of my 2000 exams were nothing more than memorising default settings and learning to say "hardware compatibility list". Useless. Pointless. No actual technical information there at all.
Trouble is, most HR and clueless managers revere the M$ certs as some kind of gospel. Sigh. If only they knew.
"Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"
Westly, The Princess Bride
It's
Must Consult Someone Experienced
The problem is that Windows XP makes an additional password, one that is not backed up using any of the tools or documents provided. That automatically generated password is necessary, as well as the user account password, to decrypt the files.
Rather than making vague claims about what hidden, undocumented passwords are preventing you from using EFS (or recovering your data), why not start reading?
I really have very little sympathy for those who whine about how much EFS sucks. First of all, one must make an explicit decision to use EFS. If you are going out of your way to protect your files, it's in your best interests to research how you can back up whatever passwords, certificates, or keys necessary to maintain access to your files.
Some particular sections that may be of interest to you and help dispel the FUD:
The Decryption Process
How EFS Uses Certificates
Exporting and Importing EFS and DRA Certificates and Private Keys: "You can use the Certificate Export wizard to export a certificate and private key to a removable medium."
Backing Up and Restoring Encrypted Files or Folders: "Opening restored, encrypted files is no different from decrypting and opening any encrypted files. However, if files are restored from backup onto a new computer, in a new forest, or at any location at which the user's profile (and thus the private key needed to decrypt the files) is not available, the user can import an EFS certificate and private key. After importing the certificate and private key, the user can decrypt the files."
Data Recovery and Data Recovery Agents: "The default design for the EFS recovery policy is different in Windows XP Professional than it was in Windows 2000 Professional. Stand-alone computers do not have a default DRA, but Microsoft strongly recommends that all environments have at least one designated DRA."
My bro ran into this studing for his certs. The Microsoft books are organized in such a way that each book has some necessary and vital information and a ton of filler. So you're stuck buying them _all_ for a complete overview of Microsoft systems. Welcome to the wonderful world of Microsoft press. You're better off with brain dumps, but OHOT you run the risk of becomming a paper MCSE.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Your post amazes me. I said in my grandparent post that Microsoft Technical Support staff agrees with what I've written about EFS. Yet you assume that you know everything about the subject, and cannot possibly have made a mistake.
It is VERY easy to encrypt a folder: Right-click on a folder. Choose Properties/ Advanced/ Encrypt contents to secure data/.
It is very difficult to realize that all of Microsoft's technical documentation leaves out an important point. The documents about backup methods don't mention that they don't work with stand-alone computers.
How is "generates a hidden password" a vague claim?
Your comment helps support what I've said, that Microsoft technical literature is of amazingly poor quality, by giving links to 6 articles about how EFS works.
It is VERY easy to get started with EFS on a stand-alone computer. It is very difficult to know that it is not possible to back up all the passwords.
My comment applies ONLY to stand-alone computers, not those that are part of a domain.
Why is it that the only Microsoft related discussions on Slashdot that don't end up as blatant bash fests are the ones that deal with the Xbox 360?
I have a real degree, from a real school.
+++
My new Home
I was told that MCSE really means:
Mine-sweeper Consultant, Solitaire Expert
-or-
Must Consult Someone Experienced
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Junctions/hard~soft-links may not work (tend to be a PITA under Windows, so I haven't tried with TrueCrypt).
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Thanks for the information.
I've been worried about TrueCrypt, because the latest version fixed a lot of what look like serious bugs. I wonder how many other bugs are there.
Have you had any problems?
Here's another example of Microsoft's lack of caring toward its customers: The SchTasks documentation.
Look at the second line: To view the command syntax, click the following command:
Notice that there are no links.
Note that the line: schtasks create should be bold, but isn't.
It should say that this command replaces AT.EXE, but it doesn't.
A list of all of Microsoft's abusiveness would require many, many books.
[A]ll of Microsoft's technical documentation leaves out an important point. The documents about backup methods don't mention that they don't work with stand-alone computers. ... it is not possible to back up all the passwords.
I submit that not only are you incorrect, the Microsoft technical support agent you spoke to was either misinformed, or you misunderstood him.
Your statement:
"If a computer is stand-alone, not part of a domain, then backing up everything, reformatting your hard drive, and reloading Windows XP will result in not having access to any of your EFS encrypted files."
Let's not forget that you are talking about people who have backed up their certificates:
"I was talking about people who did not lose their password or encryption certificates, obviously."
Here's what I know and can be verified. The published documentation regarding EFS provides two ways for a user to recover their encrypted data: with the user's certificate, or with a Designated Recovery Agent (DRA). This principle holds true regardless of whether the computer is in a domain or stand-alone environment. Let's discuss each:
1) Restore the users's previously-backed up user certificate (and private key) to the machine. There is no hidden or extra password required. Just the user's certificate and accompanying private key. This applies EVEN in a stand-alone environment. The documentation supports this and this can be independently verified on any standalone Windows XP machine.
(Note that when exporting a user's certifiate and choosing to include the private key, the user will be prompted for a password. This is used to secure the private key and the user must remember this password to restore the private key. However, this password is in no way hidden or undocumented.)
2) Use a Desginated Recovery Agent's certificate and key to decrypt the files. This is the part I believe around which there may be some confusion, because behavior around automatically created DRA's varies between stand-alone and domain-joined computers. As I pointed out in the grandparent post, "Stand-alone computers do not have a default DRA, but Microsoft strongly recommends that all environments have at least one designated DRA."
Therefore, if a user does not back up his user certificate (including private key) on a standalone Windows XP box before formatting the drive, AND there was no previously-specified DRA, he will subsequently not be able to access his encrypted data. This is by design, however, and fully documented. There is no hidden password you can use to ever recover the data.
Please, if you still disagree with me, I urge you to
1) Read the documentation (all the links in the grandparent post are links to individual topics in the single chapter on EFS in the Windows XP Resource Kit). You can find similar information in the OS help by searching for "efs" or "encryption".
2) Try it yourself. You don't have to take my word, or the word of a technical support agent. Use a virtual machine (in Virtual PC or VMWare) for a convenient fully-reproducible scenario on demand.
3) If you're still in doubt, let me know how I can contact you directly. I hate to see falsehoods perpetuated as truth, and I'm willing to work with you until we both agree what that truth is.
Interesting. I've spent many hours trying to make it work, exactly as you say. I have plenty of test computers here, so that's no problem.
I would like you to try it yourself. If you can do the steps below successfully, then it would be great to work with you to understand how to do it.
My best understanding is that Windows XP generates an additional password that is not in the certificates, and ties EFS encrypted documents to that generated password and to the user's logon password, as well as the certificates. Restoring the certificates makes no difference. I had no trouble making and restoring the certificates. But I was never successful at accessing EFS encrypted data on a second stand-alone computer, when neither have ever been part of a domain.
Here's what I've done:
1) Make a test folder, and encrypt it.
2) Backup the certificates, exactly as described in the documentation.
3) Copy the encrypted test folder to a second computer, using xcopy on a peer-to-peer network.
4) Log in to the second computer with the same user name and password.
5) Restore the certificates from step 2 to the second computer.
6) Try to access the encrypted test folder on the second computer.
7) I always got an access error. I was told by Microsoft technical support that there was no way to make a restore to a second computer successful.
However, Microsoft does sell a tool that costs more than $200 that apparently does allow recovering the generated password. There is also a web page written by someone with poor language skills, not an employee of Microsoft, who tells how to recover the generated password manually. I haven't tried either of these, because the EFS documentation is sloppy enough that I began to be scared that there would be other shortcomings.
If you search Microsoft newsgroups, you will find many people who have lost their data. It's very easy to get started with EFS, and the steps to get started make no mention of certificates. It would be easy for there to be a small window that says, "You must back up your certificates. Click here." But there is no such warning, and people are losing their work because they have not backed up the certificates, and also because the documentation says nothing about the apparent fact that EFS does not work with stand-alone computers, since there is no way to do a working backup.
If you are able to do EFS backups and restores on stand-alone computers, I would very much like to work with you.
In my opinion, Microsoft has a huge problem with documentation. The company's document development seems to go like this: 1) Someone writes a rough draft. That person is not technically knowledgeable, and leaves out important information. 2) Whoever acts as an editor, if anyone, has a very weak influence. 3) It is discovered that information must be added. But writer convenience rules. The new material is not integrated into the old material. Instead, a new web page or new article is written.
As I wrote elsewhere, the SchTasks documentation is a good example of this. Look at the second line: To view the command syntax, click the following command:
However, notice that there are no links. Notice that the line: schtasks create should be bold, but isn't. It should say that this command replaces AT.EXE, but it doesn't.
In my opinion, Microsoft's sloppiness with documents wastes the time of intelligent people and is self-destructive. By far, one of the best ways for Microsoft to compete with Linux is to produce extremely good documentation.
Apologies for the late response, I didn't have time to set up a proper test environment until this evening.
.vhd to share between the 2 virtual machines, which will contain the encrypted test data.
.pfx file. I stored the .pfx file on the D: (shared) drive.
.pfx file we exported earlier. No other similarities to the original environment are required (ie, usernames, passwords, and machine names are not required to match.) I created two new users test3 and test4 on EncTest2, and verified that as user test3, I was not able to access the encrypted test file in d:\testdir. Then, using certificate manager, I imported the .pfx containing user test1's user certificate and private key. Instantly, without even logging off, I was able to access the encrypted file in d:\testdir, as expected.
.vhd representing the shared drive between these two virtual machines. It contains the user test1's user certificate (including private key), and an encrypted directory. You'll be able to do exactly as I did: import the certificate and gain access to the encrypted content.
I used Virtual Server for this experiment. I started with one clean Windows XP SP2 image, with the Microsoft VM Additions (for improved performance in Virtual Server) and all current patches. To represent a true, imaged environment, I sysprep'd this machine and then created 2 child virtual machines from this common base. The sysprep process ensures that the machine's name and all security identifiers are unique, and is the only Microsoft-supported method for deploying imaged computers.
I created a small
I started machine 1 and named it EncTest1. On this machine I created 2 new users, test1 and test2. As user test1, I created a folder d:\testdir. Note that this folder is on the secondary hard drive (not the operating system drive). I created a text file in this directory, and then used Windows Explorer to encrypt the entire folder (including this folder, subfolders, and files). I verified that user test1 was able to access this file, and user test2 was not able to access this file.
I then used the certificate manager to export the certificate and private key belonging to user test1. It is VERY important during this process to check the box to export the user's private key as well. The private key is required to be able to decrypt files. However, the default choice when exporting a certificate is to NOT include the private key along with it. Select the option "Yes, export the private key" during this process. The certificate will be stored in a
We now have all the files and information required to simulate a crash or other unexpected loss of the original operating system and user's profile. I shut down EncTest1 and started our second machine, EncTest2. I attached the shared hard drive used in EncTest1 to our new recovery machine, EncTest2. Note that I did not xcopy the files to or from any system. You cannot copy an encrypted file to another machine on which the user does not have a certificate. If you are able to copy encrypted files to another system, you need to verify exactly which users/certificates still have access to those files (by using the Details button in file properties, advanced).
At this point, to decrypt the files, only two things are required: the user test1's user certificate and private key. Both are contained in the
To verify this was the result solely of the certificate I imported, I then logged in as user test4 and confirmed that I was unable to access the content in d:\testdir.
If you'd like to verify my results, I can make available to you the
With that, I'd like to cover a few other points:
- Yes, it's very easy to lose access to your encrypted files if the proper precautionary measures are not taken. This could possibly be remedied by a more proactive backup process or more documentation, but is not a limitation of the EFS design.
- Getti
For me, the entire issue is whether EFS can and should be used in a corporate environment with stand-alone computers.
I found the page about recovering from EFS problems: EFS Encrypted File System recovery.
This gives a map of how things are stored: "Unfinished 1024*768 image giving a brief overview".
For $99 you can get a program to decrypt EFS files without knowing the password: Advanced EFS Data Recovery. I haven't tried it. Elcomsoft is a very well-known company.
Answer to your comment above:
1) There must be a way to make encrypted backups of encrypted material, both live (on another computer) and on optical media.
2) What would be interesting is if you could recover encrypted files on another computer. The whole issue is whether you have a real backup. A situation in which you used a Microsoft product on one computer, as you have above, will never be a true test. The test you did is interesting, but actual recovery must be available on another computer.
3) There is no way to detach EFS decryption from social issues. People are led to use encryption by the ease of starting to use EFS, without any warning that there is a need to follow a procedure to save "certificates". People entrust information about their lives and their business to computers. That trust must be strongly supported.
My guess is that somehow Virtual Server provides additional information not available to another stand-alone computer.
Slashdot error? Please see comment: 13057950.
My experience with certifications from several vendors (ex-consultant who used the certs to get in the door) is that the books from the vendor itself are almost always useless. This is for several reasons, but one of them is that the vendor has a vested interest in creating the impression that the certification is difficult to get.*
The Sybex study guides I have used have all been excellent.
*Not to mention the whole "Save the world by using NetWare" BS in the Novell guides. I could not finish the first one I read.
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...