By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
426,139 Members | 1,247 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 426,139 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Office Developer and Office XP

P: n/a
I have Office 2000 and Office Developer and I want to upgrade to
Office XP. Will my copy of Office Developer work with Access XP?
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a
Depends what you mean by work. As far as I'm concerned, the major purpose of
Office Developer is the runtime that lets you package your application so
that people who don't already have Access installed will be able to use it.
That won't work: you need the Access 2002 runtime to work with Access 2002
databases. However, some of the other stuff that's in Office Developer (the
extra controls and stuff) should still work.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
"Don Kuykendall" <sa*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59*************************@posting.google.co m...
I have Office 2000 and Office Developer and I want to upgrade to
Office XP. Will my copy of Office Developer work with Access XP?

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
If you mean, can you create a database with Access 2002 and package it for
distribution with Office 2000 Developer, the answer is yes if you save it as
an Access 2000-format MDB. You can't generate an MDE-format file with Office
2002 that will run with the Access 2000 runtime. But, you could take
advantage of the perhaps smoother interface of Access 2002 (or 2003, see
below) to create the DB, save as Access 2000, use Access 2000 to create the
MDE and package with the Office 2000 Developer Edition.

If you need any of the Access 2002-unique features, e.g., pivot tables, then
the answer is "No" because those will be lost saving in Access 2000 format.
But there are not a great many new features in Access 2002 itself... for
example, the builtin Split function is new and nice, but there are many
coded versions of Split for earlier versions that you can obtain for free.

If I were considering getting a new version, I'd take a look at Office 2003.
It's available now in release version to subscribers of Microsoft Developer
Network Universal and will be in the stores before long, if not already. It,
too, has relatively few Access-only enhancements over Access 2002, but the
combination of few + few may be more enticing. I've used the Beta 2 of
Access 2003 quite a bit and it seems good and solid, so far. I haven't tried
the Office 2003 Developer Edition, though.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"Don Kuykendall" <sa*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59*************************@posting.google.co m...
I have Office 2000 and Office Developer and I want to upgrade to
Office XP. Will my copy of Office Developer work with Access XP?

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:14:43 GMT, "Larry Linson"
<bo*****@localhost.net> wrote:

<snip>
I haven't tried
the Office 2003 Developer Edition, though.

Because, it does NOT exist.

There is a Visual Studio Tools for the Microsoft Office System, which
includes the Access 2003 runtime, and a lot of other stuff to allow
.Net developers to interface with Office. Included is VB.Net

As an aside, anyone who is developing in the MS world, should strongly
consider learning OOP and .Net, for many reasons.

Steven Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
"Steve" wrote
As an aside, anyone who is developing
in the MS world, should strongly con-
sider learning OOP and .Net, for many
reasons.


Seems to me we have had similar discussions before.

Would you care to list some of those many reasons that apply to the Access
developer who wants to point-and-click to a friendly user interface and
sprinkle just enough code behind it to make it work and work smoothly? And,
in this context, OOP, in my view, is creating classes and objects, not just
being, as we all know we are "object oriented programmers, consumer side" --
but except for the slightly different notation, we could, from the consumer
side, just as well be "users of built-in functions".

Not a big development team, not a company/team that is likely to be able to
"reuse" application functionality, not an enterprise applications, and
definitely not a code-intensive environment.

It's my view that OOP is _primarily_ of benefit in a code-intensive
environment and that, if I were in such an environment, I'd likely be using
it because some (but not nearly all) of the many arguments used in support
of OOP would have merit.


Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:26:33 GMT, "Larry Linson"
<bo*****@localhost.net> wrote:
"Steve" wrote
As an aside, anyone who is developing
in the MS world, should strongly con-
sider learning OOP and .Net, for many
reasons.
Seems to me we have had similar discussions before.

Maybe, but at my age I seem to forget previous discussions ... at
least that is what my wife keeps saying :)
Would you care to list some of those many reasons that apply to the Access
developer who wants to point-and-click to a friendly user interface and
sprinkle just enough code behind it to make it work and work smoothly?
To just be able to accomplish the above, there is no reason at all.
And,
in this context, OOP, in my view, is creating classes and objects, not just
being, as we all know we are "object oriented programmers, consumer side" --
but except for the slightly different notation, we could, from the consumer
side, just as well be "users of built-in functions".

Yes, we can consume objects without knowing anything about OOP.

Not a big development team, not a company/team that is likely to be able to
"reuse" application functionality, not an enterprise applications, and
definitely not a code-intensive environment.

It's my view that OOP is _primarily_ of benefit in a code-intensive
environment and that, if I were in such an environment, I'd likely be using
it because some (but not nearly all) of the many arguments used in support
of OOP would have merit.


Frankly, I agreed with all of the above, for many, many years. But I
am finding several basic trends that make me want to learn OOP, and
VB.Net

(1) MS new programming platform is OOP. Their new development
languages are OOP. They are packaging VB.Net with the Access
Developer's Extension (run time). They are encouraging developers to
use .Net languages to interface with Office.

(2) Lot's of software developers talk OOP. Not only do I develop
systems, but I interface with other developers of my clients, and on
occasion sub contract work out to other developers using non-Access
tools. I want to understand what they are doing, and why they are
doing it.

(3) Kids in school learning programming are learning OOP. This is
what I see, and what I have been told by alumni of top, engineering
schools. Again, I want to understand how they will tackle development
projects.

(4) OOP is not just syntax. It is another way to look at a system.
To some extent, it is like going from the top/down structure
programming in the DOS world, to the event driven/messaging system of
the Windows world. It was not just a syntax change, but different
ways of looking at programming.

So, even though I do not need to know OOP to meet my current
development needs, I feel that I need to learn it to better interact
with other developers, align myself with current software trends, and
understand another way to look at programming.

As an aside, I have also tried to understand some of the differences
between C# and VB.Net, and of course, the .Net foundation

How much OOP code have I written to date .... none. But again, I am
not reading about OOP to solve my immediate, current development
tasks.

Steven R. Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.

Nov 12 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.