>
No, I wasn't equating. Just attempting to tailor my argument to the audience - yes, I know your background. And yes, I have an MBA also, albeit not from a top ranked program. :-)
>

In tailoring your argument to the audience, whether it was your intent or not, you attempted to equate/compare an MCP to an MBA. There is simply no comparision.

>>
...Why take it now? Because I think perceptions count for something and those making decisions about employing my services have no idea nor do they probably care what version of Fox is current.
>>

Your job prospects in Fox will not affected by whether you take the exam.


>>
Also, I had not thought about it before JR's comment about "personal satisfaction," but that probably plays a role as well.
>>

Sure it does - but that is not the motivation of many. Personal satisfaction is something you do for yourself. Some are trying to make a public statement to say they are "VFP-Certified" - and that somehow will make a difference. I cannot argue with the fact that many take the exam for themelves - that is fine. But to ascribe anything above that with respect to exam amounts to unreasonable expectations.

Of course, why somebody would waste time taking an exam that is on a version 6 years old - in a track that is to be retired is puzzling.


>>
I read your comments about how you would evaluate a developer candidate. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, I don't think those in positions that do the evaluating/hiring have the depth of understanding about it that you have. In our local paper here, I see "Microsoft Certification Preferred" on occasion, so you can't discount it completely.
>>

In the .NET arena, I won't argue. But for a Fox job - it won't make a difference. This is precisely why people who are interested in certification - should work toward the new .NET MCSD.



>>> If you read my posts - you would know that I have advocated 1 basic rule, keeping 1 leg grounded in what tested and works and the other leg looking to the future.
>
>I read your posts probably more than I should. I've not really seen that part of it, but I may have overlooked it.
>

Well Del...that is has been my basic philosophy.


>
I'd say it's more like R&D, but the decision to engage in a certain amout of R&D amounts to strategic planning. I think it's tough to decide where to draw the line sometimes.
>

Agreed.


>>Interesting points...except that people that look at .NET today are not considered early adopters. And again, you don't need to be an early adopter to merely investigate what is coming down the pike. I have NEVER suggested that people adopt .NET at the expense of anything else. What I have suggested is that people investigate .NET. Of course, that was 2 years ago.
>
>Neither us can say with certainty.


Yes I can. .NET has been out long enough that people adopting it today are not early adopters. There is too much out there today.


>>
I'd say .Net is not far past the end of early adoption stage if beyond it at all.
>>

This is where subjectivity comes in. My point is that .NET is past the early adopter stage. As to how far past - that is irrelevant.

>>
But this is my gut feel - I don't have access to hard numbers that would tell me. Further, I'd say when Whidbey is released .Net firmly will reach early majority. Two years ago would be the end of the innovator's time or beginning of early adoptor's. Just my opinion, though.
>>

Exactly...if you adopted .NET two years ago - you were an early adopter. Today, that is no longer the case.

>
I don't see that trend at all. The reason VFP sales and Conference attendance are down is due to economic conditions.
>

But you do realize that when everything else was on the up-tick - all facets of the VFP segment were declining. If you dig into it deeper, you will find there is no corollary between macro-economic events and the trends you see in the VFP world.

At best, this theory has been espoused by those who proclaim "well, Fox is not doing bad relative to everything else..."


>>
Sales of everything have been down, but it sounds like they are finally beginning to trend up more broadly of late. Maybe the same will be true with Fox and the conference attendance.
>>

And when the overall trends go up - and Fox stays flat or declines, that will dimiss the theory.


>>It is about tailoring things to the readership. The fact is Del - very few people are new to Fox. If you look at the demographics, the average Fox developer I believe has used the product for 7 years and is over 40 years old. Newbie topics are not something that is going to be of interest. And - if somebody wants that content - they can look at the archives.
>
>
I haven't looked at the demographics, but you're probably right on this.
Newbies can look at the archives, but I doubt most take advantage of that.
>

I am 100% right on this - as I know the demographics and understand the magazine business.


>>
I have never told somebody they are wasting their time making a living with a tool. Del, I ring the register with Fox (and Oracle) and I know for sure that I am not wasting my time. My circumstances are a bit different as I am not going to be in this business long-term - but if I was - I would still feel the same way. Sorry Del - but your last comment here makes it seem as though you have a big chip on your shoulder.
>
>Bad choice of words on my part - just trying to make the point of how what I'm doing effectively works for me. Maybe you haven't used the words "wasting their time," but maybe the implication follows from your posts in general sense. You did say it was a waste of time to take the exam, so perhaps I extrapolated that too far (sorry). I don't agree with that assessment about taking the exam, nevertheless, for reasons I articulated above.
>
>>

Wasting time on the exam is another thing all-together. Yes, you extrapolated too far.


>>Remember Del - truly good skills transcend technology. In the end, the technology should not matter. And that said, if you can make money with Fox -go for it. As long as your skill set is not tied to the "Fox way" of doing things - you are in good shape. A lot of people that poo poo the new stuff do so in light of how Fox does things. Why? Because that is their only frame of reference. Those are the people that are in serious trouble - because their problems are borne more of strategy than tactics.
>
>I agree here.

Good point to end on then....