Anyone completed the SQL Business Intelligence exams?

I've just done my final exam on SQL BI (71-445 & 71-446), have to say I gotta commend Microsoft for the new testing systems; much better than before.

Anyone else done the exams and have some input on them.

Currently revising for MCITP so my girlfriend is not happy ;-), but she knows it's worth it.

I have done MCITP DBA (70-447). Is MS already anounced these exam?. it is nice to know that u have done it. Congrats man..

Madhu

|||

Thanks, all i could find on the subject was one book on Designing a BI Solution which wasn't the best (but helped me more on the Design exam, but less on the Optimizing a BI solution exam).

Theyre really tough but hopefully worth it.

Word is they'll go official in February 2007 with courses starting up shortly after, should get my results in about 6 weeks time so fingers crossed.

|||

Hi John,

I also took the 71-445 and 71-446 exams. I can say that a BI exam covering SSRS, SSAS, SSIS and data mining is a good concept. Since BI Development is also becoming a major development branch within SQL Server.

You can find my comments on both exams on my blog entries http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2006/11/30/480.aspx and http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2006/12/27/485.aspx

I'm also waiting the exam scores hoping to pass at least one of them.

Eralper

|||

totally agree, what i've been hearing from the big companies is that they're trying to shelve Oracle in favour of SQL Server so it's value in the marketplace can only grow.

If anything it'd be a great way to get into the SAP arena.

Good luck on your results, I hope I pass at least one of them, thought I did better on the last exam 71-446 than the optimizing exam.

Now revising for 70-443 (designing a sql system), aiming for my MCITP in SQL 2005, already passed my MCTS so just two exams to do but they're proving really draining.

|||

Hi,

Finally, the release dates are clarified as 2nd of March, 2007

http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2007/01/12/490.aspx

Anyone completed the SQL Business Intelligence exams?

I've just done my final exam on SQL BI (71-445 & 71-446), have to say I gotta commend Microsoft for the new testing systems; much better than before.

Anyone else done the exams and have some input on them.

Currently revising for MCITP so my girlfriend is not happy ;-), but she knows it's worth it.

I have done MCITP DBA (70-447). Is MS already anounced these exam?. it is nice to know that u have done it. Congrats man..

Madhu

|||

Thanks, all i could find on the subject was one book on Designing a BI Solution which wasn't the best (but helped me more on the Design exam, but less on the Optimizing a BI solution exam).

Theyre really tough but hopefully worth it.

Word is they'll go official in February 2007 with courses starting up shortly after, should get my results in about 6 weeks time so fingers crossed.

|||

Hi John,

I also took the 71-445 and 71-446 exams. I can say that a BI exam covering SSRS, SSAS, SSIS and data mining is a good concept. Since BI Development is also becoming a major development branch within SQL Server.

You can find my comments on both exams on my blog entries http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2006/11/30/480.aspx and http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2006/12/27/485.aspx

I'm also waiting the exam scores hoping to pass at least one of them.

Eralper

|||

totally agree, what i've been hearing from the big companies is that they're trying to shelve Oracle in favour of SQL Server so it's value in the marketplace can only grow.

If anything it'd be a great way to get into the SAP arena.

Good luck on your results, I hope I pass at least one of them, thought I did better on the last exam 71-446 than the optimizing exam.

Now revising for 70-443 (designing a sql system), aiming for my MCITP in SQL 2005, already passed my MCTS so just two exams to do but they're proving really draining.

|||

Hi,

Finally, the release dates are clarified as 2nd of March, 2007

http://www.kodyaz.com/blogs/software_development_blog/archive/2007/01/12/490.aspx

Any need to convert DAO to ADO?

I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
backend to SQL Server 2000.
It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
It's working fine.
Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
A2003?
I can't see any justification at the moment.
Terry BellHi
There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
upgrade to 2003.
John
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
> backend to SQL Server 2000.
> It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
> It's working fine.
> Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
> which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
> Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
> A2003?
> I can't see any justification at the moment.
> Terry Bell
>|||BTW
You may want to post to an access newsgroup as they are more likely to have
indepth experience of this sort of conversion.
John
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzQgLjKdFHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
> Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
> upgrade to 2003.
> John
> <dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
>> backend to SQL Server 2000.
>> It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
>> It's working fine.
>> Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
>> which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
>> Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
>> A2003?
>> I can't see any justification at the moment.
>> Terry Bell
>|||Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
Terry|||Hi
DAO and RDO are considered obsolete by Microsoft.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/mdac/techinfo/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnmdac/html/data_mdacroadmap.asp
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119185731.468657.15010@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
> Terry
>

Any need to convert DAO to ADO?

I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
backend to SQL Server 2000.
It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
It's working fine.
Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
A2003?
I can't see any justification at the moment.
Terry Bell
Hi
There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
upgrade to 2003.
John
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
> backend to SQL Server 2000.
> It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
> It's working fine.
> Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
> which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
> Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
> A2003?
> I can't see any justification at the moment.
> Terry Bell
>
|||BTW
You may want to post to an access newsgroup as they are more likely to have
indepth experience of this sort of conversion.
John
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzQgLjKdFHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
> Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
> upgrade to 2003.
> John
> <dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
Terry
|||Hi
DAO and RDO are considered obsolete by Microsoft.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/mdac/...dacroadmap.asp
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119185731.468657.15010@.g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
> Terry
>

Any need to convert DAO to ADO?

I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
backend to SQL Server 2000.
It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
It's working fine.
Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
A2003?
I can't see any justification at the moment.
Terry BellHi
There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
upgrade to 2003.
John
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have recently completed upsizing a large Access 97 system from a Jet
> backend to SQL Server 2000.
> It uses linked tables and DAO exclusively.
> It's working fine.
> Sooner or later, the front end will need to go to A2003 or whatever,
> which I asssume won't be too much of a problem.
> Would there be any advantage converting to ADO, now, or when it goes to
> A2003?
> I can't see any justification at the moment.
> Terry Bell
>|||BTW
You may want to post to an access newsgroup as they are more likely to have
indepth experience of this sort of conversion.
John
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzQgLjKdFHA.1244@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There probably isn't any significant reasons to do this if you are keeping
> Access as the front end, although it should help reduce the impact of the
> upgrade to 2003.
> John
> <dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119167899.670346.155260@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>|||Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
Terry|||Hi
DAO and RDO are considered obsolete by Microsoft.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/mdac...mdacroadmap.asp
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
<dreadnought8@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119185731.468657.15010@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes thanks - I posted to this newsgroup in error
> Terry
>