By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,497 Members | 2,127 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,497 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2003 RunTime cost

P: n/a
As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003 with my
app I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office System package"
which contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not want.

Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my Office
2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft forcing me
tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the hell is
AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This is nonsense!

Paul
Dec 18 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
Hi, Paul.
I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my Office
2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft?
Anyone who is not the copyright owner (Microsoft) and distributes copyrighted
material (AccessRT.msi) without a license to distribute that copyrighted
material is being unscrupulous and infringing on the copyright. However, if one
buys VSTO, one also purchases the right to distribute unlimited copies of the
Access Runtime without paying the copyright owner any further royalties. That's
quite a bargain if the Access Runtime licenses are distributed in large numbers,
but rather expensive if one only needs two or three Access licenses for a small
shop.
What the hell is AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it?
Of course you can use it. The copyright owner (Microsoft) has given this file
to you to use on one computer (or however many computers as is listed in your
EULA). You may _not_ distribute this file to others or install it on more
computers than is granted by your EULA.
This is nonsense!
This is capitalism. If one doesn't like the product or the price, the market is
open for other businesses to produce products that fill the same niche at better
prices and/or with better features and/or with faster delivery. There are many
database products on the market, some commercial, some open source (free).
Access is only one of them. You may choose Access, another database
application, or you may even write your own.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact info.
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:1f******************************@eclipse.net. uk...
As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003 with my app
I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office System package" which
contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not want.

Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my Office
2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft forcing me
tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the hell is
AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This is nonsense!

Paul

Dec 18 '06 #2

P: n/a
Paul H wrote:
As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003
with my app I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office
System package" which contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not
want.
Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my
Office 2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!
Or you can just give the user your Office CD and let them install full-blown
Access to run your application and not tell anyone.
Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft
forcing me tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the
hell is AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This
is nonsense!
What is the full-blown version of Access doing on your CD if you can't give
the CD to anyone you want to install Office with?

The *intended purpose* of the developer's tools is to let developer's
provide the runtime free to LOTS of users who don't already have Access
installed. Yes, it is a lot to pay to support ONE user, but if you can
supply the run time to a dozen or more users it gets pretty inexpensive
per-user.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Dec 18 '06 #3

P: n/a

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:7r******************@newssvr11.news.prodigy.n et...
Paul H wrote:
>As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003
with my app I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office
System package" which contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not
want.
Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my
Office 2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Or you can just give the user your Office CD and let them install
full-blown Access to run your application and not tell anyone.
OK, point I was making was that it seemed a bit daft to put the runtime on
the office cd if I can't use it.
>
>Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft
forcing me tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the
hell is AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This
is nonsense!

What is the full-blown version of Access doing on your CD if you can't
give the CD to anyone you want to install Office with?
The full blown version and the runtime are quite different things. I am
merely taking issue with the supply of unusable software that has a very
specific purpose. Why give it to me if I can't use it.
>
The *intended purpose* of the developer's tools is to let developer's
provide the runtime free to LOTS of users who don't already have Access
installed. Yes, it is a lot to pay to support ONE user, but if you can
supply the run time to a dozen or more users it gets pretty inexpensive
per-user.

Fair point.

Cheers Rick.
>
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Dec 19 '06 #4

P: n/a

"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AMwrote in
message news:9o******************************@adelphia.com ...
Hi, Paul.
>I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my
Office 2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft?

Anyone who is not the copyright owner (Microsoft) and distributes
copyrighted material (AccessRT.msi) without a license to distribute that
copyrighted material is being unscrupulous and infringing on the
copyright. However, if one buys VSTO, one also purchases the right to
distribute unlimited copies of the Access Runtime without paying the
copyright owner any further royalties. That's quite a bargain if the
Access Runtime licenses are distributed in large numbers, but rather
expensive if one only needs two or three Access licenses for a small shop.
>What the hell is AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it?

Of course you can use it. The copyright owner (Microsoft) has given this
file to you to use on one computer (or however many computers as is listed
in your EULA). You may _not_ distribute this file to others or install it
on more computers than is granted by your EULA.
Surely there would be hardly any users of the runtime in this way. I guess I
am just peeved at paying 600 for a suite of products I do not want just to
have the right to use a piece of software that MS has supplied me with. I
just seems a bit...well... bonkers.

:0.
>
>This is nonsense!

This is capitalism. If one doesn't like the product or the price, the
market is open for other businesses to produce products that fill the same
niche at better prices and/or with better features and/or with faster
delivery. There are many database products on the market, some
commercial, some open source (free). Access is only one of them. You may
choose Access, another database application, or you may even write your
own.
When you are tied into a product (I have spent a lot of time learning
Access) you can not simply say "Screw this, I'll go and learn some open
source product.". It is cynical of MS to force me to pay 600 for suite of
stuff, when all I want is the licence to distribute the Access runtime.

I couldn't say to my customers "The database is 2,000 but you must buy this
pack of desktop widgets and other crap that I developed that do nothing that
you'll ever need for another 3,000". Isn't that ludicrous? Unreasonable?

Paul
>
HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:1f******************************@eclipse.net. uk...
>As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003 with
my app I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office System
package" which contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not want.

Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my
Office 2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft forcing
me tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the hell is
AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This is
nonsense!

Paul


Dec 19 '06 #5

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:sO*********************@eclipse.net.uk...
>
OK, point I was making was that it seemed a bit daft to put the runtime on the
office cd if I can't use it.
I have no idea why they put the runtime MSI on the cd. It can also be
downloaded from the MS website, but at least on the web page there is some fine
print concerning who can legally download it.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Dec 19 '06 #6

P: n/a
Paul H wrote:
When you are tied into a product (I have spent a lot of time learning
Access) you can not simply say "Screw this, I'll go and learn some
open source product.". It is cynical of MS to force me to pay 600
for suite of stuff, when all I want is the licence to distribute the
Access runtime.
I couldn't say to my customers "The database is 2,000 but you must
buy this pack of desktop widgets and other crap that I developed that
do nothing that you'll ever need for another 3,000". Isn't that
ludicrous? Unreasonable?
Are you familiar with how enterprise software licensing often works? We
recently updated our IBM ISeries and had to pay 17,000 dollars to one of our
software providers just because we changed boxes. This was so the same 6 IT
workers could run that exact same software to do the exact same thing as
before the hardware change. The reasoning is if you buy a box powerful
enough to support more users then you are charged as if you will actually
have more users.

If you want to complain about the developer's tools complain about how they
suck at their intended purpose. The price is one of the least offensive
things about it. The targeted purchaser of the developer's tools are people
who make money developing and selling Access solutions. The price to
acquire the tools to do your job comes with the territory.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Dec 19 '06 #7

P: n/a

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:oD******************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
Paul H wrote:
>When you are tied into a product (I have spent a lot of time learning
Access) you can not simply say "Screw this, I'll go and learn some
open source product.". It is cynical of MS to force me to pay 600
for suite of stuff, when all I want is the licence to distribute the
Access runtime.
I couldn't say to my customers "The database is 2,000 but you must
buy this pack of desktop widgets and other crap that I developed that
do nothing that you'll ever need for another 3,000". Isn't that
ludicrous? Unreasonable?

Are you familiar with how enterprise software licensing often works? We
recently updated our IBM ISeries and had to pay 17,000 dollars to one of
our software providers just because we changed boxes. This was so the
same 6 IT workers could run that exact same software to do the exact same
thing as before the hardware change. The reasoning is if you buy a box
powerful enough to support more users then you are charged as if you will
actually have more users.
Now THAT is outrageous!! Oh well if developers can get away with that kind
of trick, I guess I'm in the right business.
;o)

Was this a small development house or a multinational who had the client by
the balls? What businessman in their right mind would put up with such crap
from their supplier? I admit my naivety on the whole subject of licensing,
this thread is becoming a real eye opener, but I am stunned that people can
get away with this, it's tantamount to theft.

I appreciate your comments in this thread Rick

Paul
>
If you want to complain about the developer's tools complain about how
they suck at their intended purpose. The price is one of the least
offensive things about it. The targeted purchaser of the developer's
tools are people who make money developing and selling Access solutions.
The price to acquire the tools to do your job comes with the territory.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Dec 19 '06 #8

P: n/a
Paul H wrote:
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:oD******************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>Are you familiar with how enterprise software licensing often works?
We recently updated our IBM ISeries and had to pay 17,000 dollars to
one of our software providers just because we changed boxes. This
was so the same 6 IT workers could run that exact same software to
do the exact same thing as before the hardware change. The
reasoning is if you buy a box powerful enough to support more users
then you are charged as if you will actually have more users.

Now THAT is outrageous!! Oh well if developers can get away with that
kind of trick, I guess I'm in the right business.
;o)

Was this a small development house or a multinational who had the
client by the balls? What businessman in their right mind would put
up with such crap from their supplier? I admit my naivety on the
whole subject of licensing, this thread is becoming a real eye
opener, but I am stunned that people can get away with this, it's
tantamount to theft.
At least in the "world of IBM" this is pretty much standard fair. Our main
ERP software licenses are very strictly tied to the hardware. Our current
box supports multiple processors, but we currently only have one installed.
Installing another would trigger a quarter million dollar jump in our
license fee to that software vendor.

In this environment there is also a lot more software that you pay for
per-year and on-going. As soon as you stop paying the software stops
working.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Dec 19 '06 #9

P: n/a
Hi, Paul.
Surely there would be hardly any users of the runtime in this way. I guess I
am just peeved at paying 600 for a suite of products I do not want just to
have the right to use a piece of software that MS has supplied me with. I just
seems a bit...well... bonkers.
The way Microsoft packages other Office developer tools bundled with the
unlimited Access Runtime license seems a bit odd (as in "Why isn't it
separate?"), but when comparing it to other developer tools, such as compilers
and softare packagers/installers, this price -- while high -- is more
reasonable. One place where I worked, we had 10 programmers but each compiler
license was $2,500 to $11,000, so we had roaming licenses that we had to share.
No more than three programmers could be working on an ADA program at the same
time, and no more than five of us could program in C or C++ at the same time,
either.
I couldn't say to my customers "The database is 2,000 but you must buy this
pack of desktop widgets and other crap that I developed that do nothing that
you'll ever need for another 3,000". Isn't that ludicrous? Unreasonable?
Compare what it would cost them to develop the same application with .Net and
SQL Server or Oracle. Probably $15 K to $25 K or more. Access provides a RAD
environment that allows you to develop a stable multiuser database application
in a fraction of the time (and cost) of the equivalent application built with
other tools. The customer will buy your solution if it's more competitive than
the other alternatives, even if they have to buy 10 retail Access licenses to
use your solution. If you can provide the Access Runtime licenses they need
instead, the price of your solution is that much more competitive.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact info.
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:wJ******************************@eclipse.net. uk...
>
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AMwrote in
message news:9o******************************@adelphia.com ...
>Hi, Paul.
>>I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my Office
2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft?

Anyone who is not the copyright owner (Microsoft) and distributes copyrighted
material (AccessRT.msi) without a license to distribute that copyrighted
material is being unscrupulous and infringing on the copyright. However, if
one buys VSTO, one also purchases the right to distribute unlimited copies of
the Access Runtime without paying the copyright owner any further royalties.
That's quite a bargain if the Access Runtime licenses are distributed in
large numbers, but rather expensive if one only needs two or three Access
licenses for a small shop.
>>What the hell is AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it?

Of course you can use it. The copyright owner (Microsoft) has given this
file to you to use on one computer (or however many computers as is listed in
your EULA). You may _not_ distribute this file to others or install it on
more computers than is granted by your EULA.

Surely there would be hardly any users of the runtime in this way. I guess I
am just peeved at paying 600 for a suite of products I do not want just to
have the right to use a piece of software that MS has supplied me with. I just
seems a bit...well... bonkers.

:0.
>>
>>This is nonsense!

This is capitalism. If one doesn't like the product or the price, the market
is open for other businesses to produce products that fill the same niche at
better prices and/or with better features and/or with faster delivery. There
are many database products on the market, some commercial, some open source
(free). Access is only one of them. You may choose Access, another database
application, or you may even write your own.

When you are tied into a product (I have spent a lot of time learning Access)
you can not simply say "Screw this, I'll go and learn some open source
product.". It is cynical of MS to force me to pay 600 for suite of stuff,
when all I want is the licence to distribute the Access runtime.

I couldn't say to my customers "The database is 2,000 but you must buy this
pack of desktop widgets and other crap that I developed that do nothing that
you'll ever need for another 3,000". Isn't that ludicrous? Unreasonable?

Paul
>>
HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact info.
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:1f******************************@eclipse.net .uk...
>>As I understand it, to distribute a runtime version of Access 2003 with my
app I need to spend 600 on "Visual Studio Tools for Office System package"
which contains the RT plus a load of stuff I do not want.

Or....

I can supply the client with a copy of "AccessRT.msi" which is on my Office
2003 pro CD and not tell anyone!

Who is being more unscrupulous, me or Microsoft? Surely Microsoft forcing me
tospend 600 in this way is completely unethical. What the hell is
AccessRT.msi doing on the Office CD if I can not use it? This is nonsense!

Paul



Dec 21 '06 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.