VB6 Professional - still available? reasonable price?

Currently running VB5 Pro. Have a ton of VB source all the way back to VB3. Source conversion to VB.net is not in the cards unless someone (not me) is covering some of the cost.

Can I still buy VB6 Pro from MS? Are Upgrade versions available?

A copy of VB6 Enterprise will also do the trick (if available for reasonable price)?

I believe VB5 Pro came with a MSDN subscription, can it be used to buy (or download) a copy from MS?

Thanks,
Bob

If need be I'll purchase VB6 Pro privately but I'm hoping to avoid this.

At one point in time, you would be able to buy .Net and downgrade to VB6. But I think that offer is long gone. I've seen sites (not e-bay) that offer full VB6 Pro editions, but cost is $400+. e-bay may still be an option, but 1) still looking at $200+ and 2) potential of buying pirated software.

Regarding any subscription questions, you should talk with MS directly. You don't want to buy some subscription based on second-hand information and be upset when you find out your information was wrong and wasted lots of money in the process.

MSDN used to have "documentation only" subscription levels. That is what came with VB6, two or three years worth included I think. I never saw it with VB5 but I only had VB5 Standard because we went from VB4 to VB6 pretty quickly. VB6 only came in Pro and Ent because Microsoft was done with headaches from trying to support hobbyists.

To get VB6 now there is only the route of a full MSDN subscription. Costly, but if you need it at least the option exists.

There may also be some copies for sale used but a lot of them are dicey and probably don't conform to the transfer requirements of the license agreement.

I don't remember it with VB5 either. I think VB5 Pro came with 2 printed manuals, one for the language reference and another for the activex controls reference. I know I have both books on my shelf here and am pretty sure they came in the box with VB5.

You'd have to read the fine print, but I'm not sure that software acquired using an MSDN Subscription has a perpetual license. You may be required to stop using it if your subscription expires.

Thanks for the replies. Buying VB privately will be a 50/50 shot. I'm going to try MS on Tuesday morning to see what they suggest. If the purchase .net and get VB6 offer still stands I'd be real happy. I should've checked garage sales this weekend. You never know what you'll find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob_too

I should've checked garage sales this weekend. You never know what you'll find.

---

Sometimes you don't find it until you get home... dead spot on CD preventing successful installation :eek:

Depending on what MS has to say I might be staying in VB5. We'll see what they say Tuesday.

I've had people pushing me towards VB.net but it makes little sense. I don't know .net well and any unsupported VB5 conversions might be expensive. Any completely new code could end up in VB.net or Power Basic. I'm undecided right now.

Thanks again for the info. I think I'll hang around a while and do some reading (I haven't written much code in 15 years, so things are a little rusty).

Bob

VB.Net is quite a bit different for sure but it is also a lot the same as VB5 and 6. Enough so that it is not that hard to move from one to the other. A lot of VB5/6 code will work in VB.Net without changes and a lot will not. Really depends on what type of project you are working with.

I use both on a regular basis and do not really have a problem jumping back and forth.

:ehh:

Unless that thing about 6 coming with .NET is true we're really into the moral principles of abandonware here.
THERE I SAID IT!
::waits for lightning::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

VB.Net is quite a bit different for sure but it is also a lot the same as VB5 and 6. Enough so that it is not that hard to move from one to the other. A lot of VB5/6 code will work in VB.Net without changes and a lot will not. Really depends on what type of project you are working with.

I use both on a regular basis and do not really have a problem jumping back and forth.

---

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Even after the conversion wizard upgrading even the simplest of my projects requires at least 80% re-write. :eek:

Hi Bob_too,

I still buy copies off of eBay. I've got something like 4 licenses sitting on my shelf right now (but none for sale). I've never had a problem with buying them from folks on eBay, but I'm always sure that I get the original CD and jewel case with the serial number. If they don't show that in the picture, I won't buy it. And yeah, the $200 to $400 range is what you should expect to pay.

Also, I've been around long enough to go through the PDS-Basic, VB-DOS, and all the VB123456 versions. As far as I remember, code written in VB5 is directly compilable (no modifications) by VB6. And that is VERY FAR from true if you jump to .NET. That's why VB6 still enjoys the popularity that it does.

Also, be sure to get the VB6 service pack 6 (SP6) when you get it. That's still downloadable from Microsoft for free.

And yet another tip, as LaVolpe states, Microsoft is still being a total *#&% about back-licensing. Strictly speaking, you can't set an uninstalled .NET copy on your shelf and then use a copy of VB6 (legally). In the life-cycle of various products, this is the only case I know of where Microsoft doesn't allow this. However, what's Microsoft going to say? You need a product that they've discontinued so you buy a newer version to use the older version. Are they going to come after you? I very seriously doubt it. They'd be in more jeopardy for discontinuing a necessary product than you (or your client) would be in.

Since my primary application is open source, my clients often want to stare at the code, and possibly tweak it (although they never actually wind up tweaking it). Therefore, they're often looking for copies of VB6. And my clients are extreme sticklers about licensing. I just outline the situation to them and let them make their own choices.

One more tip: Stay away from the Learning Editions unless you don't care about compiling to executable. The Academic Editions are fine. They're just like the other editions, except they were originally sold at Academic prices.

Best Regards,
Elroy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fafalone

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Even after the conversion wizard upgrading even the simplest of my projects requires at least 80% re-write. :eek:

---

I'm sorry but I've got to second fafalone's comment. VB6 and .NET are fundamentally different languages. That's true at their core, and it's true on the surface syntactically. In fact, it's so true that many have stopped trying to call the .NET products "Visual Basic". Just try googling "visual basic" and see what you get!

I'm still of the opinion that it's criminal what Microsoft is doing, and there's just not anyone who's taken the time to challenge them on it.

Best Regards,
Elroy

EDIT1: One last thing, Bob_too. If you have an existing VB5 program with some reasonable volume of code, IMHO, there's no reasonable decision but to embrace VB6, unless you're willing to engage in a major debugging, rewriting, alpha testing, and beta testing endeavor. With VB6, you'll feel quite comfortable basically in a matter of hours (if not less).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fafalone

:ehh:

Unless that thing about 6 coming with .NET is true we're really into the moral principles of abandonware here.
THERE I SAID IT!
::waits for lightning::




That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Even after the conversion wizard upgrading even the simplest of my projects requires at least 80% re-write. :eek:

---

Like I say it depends on the project. A lot of VB5/6 code is 100% compatible most of it has newer preferred methods but the old stuff still works.

Quote:

---

I believe VB5 Pro came with a MSDN subscription, can it be used to buy (or download) a copy from MS

---

Just to confirm this, in case it wasnt clear, if you have a professional MSDN subscription you can download and licence VB versions 2,3,4 & 6 although for some reason NOT 5 !!!

The licences do not appear to run out if you stop your subscription

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Just to confirm this, in case it wasnt clear, if you have a professional MSDN subscription you can download and licence VB versions 2,3,4 & 6 although for some reason NOT 5 !!!

The licences do not appear to run out if you stop your subscription

---

Not just those versions but also most of the newer versions after VB6 as well. Last I looked the only ones I think were missing were 1,5 and the first .net release [VB7]
QuickBasic 4.5 is also available or was the last time I looked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

VB.Net is quite a bit different for sure but it is also a lot the same as VB5 and 6. Enough so that it is not that hard to move from one to the other. A lot of VB5/6 code will work in VB.Net without changes and a lot will not. Really depends on what type of project you are working with.

I use both on a regular basis and do not really have a problem jumping back and forth.

---

Actually the above isn't that far off-base. I tried vb.net 2010 for giggles a while back. Control structures seemed identical to vb5. What I didn't like was the habit(?) of mixing DIM with code. I want Dim in one location only (at the top of a routine). Chasing Dim statements through a routine is a no-no, at least for me.

I've got one mid-sized app (~55k lines) and a ton of smaller stuff. It might be possible to move the small stuff. But the mid-size app, nope. The active code is all VB5.

I kick myself for not upgrading when VB6 first appeared. But I bought into the MS party line about VB.net being the best thing since sliced bread. Wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Just to confirm this, in case it wasnt clear, if you have a professional MSDN subscription you can download and licence VB versions 2,3,4 & 6 although for some reason NOT 5 !!!

The licences do not appear to run out if you stop your subscription

---

Now this I didn't know. Time to have that chat with MS. Thanks for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob_too

What I didn't like was the habit(?) of mixing DIM with code. I want Dim in one location only (at the top of a routine). Chasing Dim statements through a routine is a no-no, at least for me.

---

Of course there is nothing that says you have to mix dim statements inline with the code. It is just an option that allows you to limit the scope of the variable more than you could in previous versions.
You could also dim variables mixed in with the code in VB5/6 the only difference was the broader scope when used that way in previous versions.

I like that you can dim a var inline and limit its scope such as

Code:

---

For X as Integer=1 to 10
    'do something with X
Next

---

X is in scope only within the loop

I also like being able to set a value as part of the dim statement

Code:

---

Dim X as Integer=24

---

And being able to place multiple vars in a single dim without the need for the multiple AS portions

Code:

---

Dim X,Y,Z as Integer

---

VB6 will accept that line but X and Y will be variants to the surprise of a lot of people apparently.
In VB.Net X,Y and Z will all be Integers




I used VB5 up until around 2001 before switching completely to VB6 and started using VB.Net shortly after the 2003 version was released.

Quote:

---

Control structures seemed identical to vb5.

---

Depends on the control, labels for example no longer have a caption property instead it is now .text
List boxes and several other controls require a different syntax than before, some controls are not present and new ones were added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

I like that you can dim a var inline and limit its scope such as

Code:

---

For X as Integer=1 to 10
    'do something with X
Next

---

---

Thanks but no. I've got complex routines where I want to see the vars dimensioned in one location only.

Program control structures, as in: If..Then. Do..Loop, For..Next, Select Case..End Select not controls themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob_too

Thanks but no. I've got complex routines where I want to see the vars dimensioned in one location only.

---

And that's your prerogative. There's nothing stopping you from doing it that way. Just like there's nothing stopping me from doing it the other way. Personally I like it this way as it allows me to create variables at the lowest level block and they only exist for as long as they need to (such as the For loop) ...

TBH - I used to have the same mantra...that all vars to be declared at the top of the sub... now... it's more about scope. If the var is going to be used the whole life of the sub, it gets declared at the top... otherwise it gets declared closer to where it actually gets used in what ever block makes the most sense.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob_too

Thanks but no. I've got complex routines where I want to see the vars dimensioned in one location only.

Program control structures, as in: If..Then. Do..Loop, For..Next, Select Case..End Select not controls themselves.

---

Of course you can do it that way as well. No problem with it at all.
Personally If a var is only used within a loop or some other small part of the code I have no problem defining it there and having it go out of scope afterwards. The biggest upside there is that you can see the definition where the variable is actually used and do not have to scroll up to the top to locate it.

But again there is no reason at all that you can not dim the vars at the top if that is your preference, I normally do it that way myself also, as with many other things it is just an option that is available.

Bob_too,

All the above back-and-forth is just further proof that even the original .NET was a total rewrite of VB6. Even the core (lowest level) of code instantiation was replace from the COM model (which truly evolved out of old DOS linkers and their ability to do overlays) to the new .NET model (which has virtually nothing to do with the COM model).

Now, that COM/NET switch wouldn't have been a killer for me. However, in the total rewrite (from VB6 to .NET), they also changed the syntax of the language in many fundamental ways. For instance (and I'm not sure if it's still this way), the LBound() of any array in .NET was forced to be zero, whereas in VB6 it could be anything you liked (even negative). It's those kinds of "tweaks" (I really mean, assaults on a magnificent language) that made a HUGE amount of code untenable for a VB6-to-.NET port.

@Microsoft: Criminal, just criminal.

Have a Great Day,
Elroy

Hmmm, it does appear that an MSDN (i.e., Visual Studio) subscription entitles one to a perpetual license of VB6. I scanned the agreement, and here are a few passages I gleaned (although none explicitly mention VB6):

Quote:

---

Visual Studio subscriptions purchased through certain channels provide perpetual use rights that allow subscribers to
continue using certain software products obtained through an active subscription after the subscription has expired.

---

Quote:

---

However, subscribers are not entitled to updates for that software after the subscription has expired, nor do they continue
to have access to software or product keys through Subscriber Downloads or to other subscription services that are a
benefit of having an active subscription.

---

Quote:

---

Product keys that were acquired while the subscription was active can continue
being used until all activations for those keys have been exhausted.

---

They also state that these licenses can't be transferred or sold.

They also have a $45/month subscription which does include older versions. It specifically states, "Earlier versions for PC (2015, 2013, etc.)". I'm assuming that VB6 would be picked up in that, but not certain.

I clicked part of the way in on this option and found this statement...

Quote:

---

Start and stop projects whenever you need, with the flexibility of paying month-to-month and the convenience of having your development tools consolidated on the same bill with other Microsoft Azure cloud services like virtual machines and storage.

---

So, it appears that VB6 is possibly available for a one-time monthly fee of $45, download, and then cancel. I didn't follow through with it, but it'd be nice if someone else could verify this.

Best Regards,
Elroy

COM's ABI evolved from DDE and OLE. Overlays were obsoleted away by Virtual Memory well before COM.

Quote:

---

However, in the total rewrite (from VB6 to .NET), they also changed the syntax of the language in many fundamental ways. For instance (and I'm not sure if it's still this way), the LBound() of any array in .NET was forced to be zero, whereas in VB6 it could be anything you liked (even negative). It's those kinds of "tweaks" (I really mean, assaults on a magnificent language) that made a HUGE amount of code untenable for a VB6-to-.NET port.

---

True the Option Base statement is no longer there but I have always used a base 0 in all of my coding dating back to well before VB.
To me it just makes sense to use a base 0 for these. I always had an issue with the fact that some things in VB had a base of 1 instead of 0. Changing that to where everything had a base of 0 made a lot more sense and removed confusion.

I just opened my little recycle bin enumerator from yesterday in .NET...

1101 "Tasks", half of which I can't even understand what it's saying is wrong. "Couldn't resolve default property" means what exactly, for example. "Module methods of COM objects" is a 'unsupported COM expression'... looks like my entire TLB framework needs a rewrite.

No native VarPtr/StrPtr, "As Any" is not supported.. if overloading is, going to have to manually rewrite loads of API declares.

Have to go through and initialize loads of variables...

And that's just from that tiny project. Let's face it, unless you're writing extremely simple apps that don't use a lot of API/COM, the conversion wizard is useless and the learning curve is just as steep as any other high level language.

And really, that renders VB.NET pointless really. If you're going to learn a new language, why pick VB.NET. Just as easy to go to C# or Java. Picking up Java after VB6 was a breeze for me in college; not any harder than .NET.

Well like I said before it depends on the project but it also depends on coding style.
For example if you are using default properties that is an issue.
If you use a lot of API that is an issue as well.

If you use VB code and use the actual properties rather than having it use the defaults then a lot of those issue are not present.

DataMiser,

You can debate all you want, but there's a reason nobody uses VB5 or VB4 or VB3 or VB2 or VB-DOS, and this VB6 forums is still extremely active, at times being more active than the .NET forum. It's because there was a clear and easy upgrade path from all those prior languages, and that's just not true between VB6 and .NET.

Also, through the years, I've made my own lists of all the differences betwen VB6 and .NET, but it's not worth enumerating them here. The mere fact that VB6 still has the strong following it does says it all. Ohhhh, and let's not forget the petition to Microsoft to bring back VB6 with over 11,000 signatures, the most of any petition allowed by Microsoft. Where's the petition to bring back VB5 or VB4, or any prior version. Oh yeah ... there's not one.

.NET is a different language, and, as Fafalone outlines, if we're going to go to a different language, there are far better alternatives than .NET.

Truly ... Best Regards,
Elroy

Bob,
If Elroy is correct ($45 gets you VB6 grab it).
Your VB5 projects should open and run without changes in the VB6 IDE, and be compile'able.
The changes are really just (good) extras, that you can adopt (or not) whenever you choose.
I had one large project in VB5, that used a lot of DAO.
I upgraded individual Forms (DAO to ADO), over a period of months, and the two types of data accessing co-existed happily in that period.

Do yourself a favor,
Rob
PS I don't recall VB5 coming with a MSDN subscription (VB5 had a pretty good self contained help file)
Make sure that you get the MSDN DVD (or CDs) for 2000/2001, so that you can get integrated help.
(I have the Oct 2000 DVD. After 2001 there was too much VB.NET stuff in there, if my memory serves me correctly)

I'm pretty sure the MSDN subscription was a separate thing originally, as I didn't have VB6, but did have VB5 as part of my last full Visual Studio Suite (I only bought VB6 pro as a single language option) but I was a beta test member of the MSDN subscription when it first came out. I don't remember the year off hand, but I got a T-Shirt somewhere of an Anvil crushing a bug for being a beta team member. I continued the subscription for the first couple of years but the first year it jumped to over six hundred dollars I opted out since I only used VB primarily as a hobby and some personal tool type applications.

Say Bobbles,

Dilettante gives me a hard time about it, but I still use the DAO and love it. I actually use both the DAO and ADO in the same project (my primary project). The DAO (as well as the ADO) are part of the core Windows OS, and have been for quite some time.

Best Regards,
Elroy

Elroy

I support DAO !! ;)
After all, not all databases are hierarchical or relational.

Spoo

Ohhh, the DAO can manipulate hierarchical databases just fine. I've got procedures for adding indexes, adding relationships, and many more. Also, it fully supports cascading deletes and pretty much the full gamut of features available on native MS-Access databases. The only downside to the DAO (that pushes me to the ADO) is its inability to hook up to a SQL server on a WAN. And that's why I use both the DAO and the ADO.

Best Regards,
Elroy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elroy

The only downside to the DAO (that pushes me to the ADO) is its inability to hook up to a SQL server on a WAN.

---

Ahh .. good to know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elroy

DataMiser,

You can debate all you want, but there's a reason nobody uses VB5 or VB4 or VB3 or VB2 or VB-DOS, and this VB6 forums is still extremely active, at times being more active than the .NET forum. It's because there was a clear and easy upgrade path from all those prior languages, and that's just not true between VB6 and .NET.

---

Actually there are some here who still use VB5 and I am sure there are those out there who still use some of the others though probably a pretty small number as only VB4 and later are actually suitable for Windows 9x and later OS.

As for the upgrade path yes from one version to the next with the exception of VBDos. Jumping over a version could be a bit trickier. Going from 3 to 6 could be very tricky.

Anyway. Yes there are many choices of language to choose from and many are better for a specific purpose than others but the fact remains that if you are a BASIC coder then VB.Net is much more simple to understand and become productive in. It can do pretty much the same as C# but does it with a BASIC syntax which every BASIC coder should know and understand already.

As for the petition 11,000 is not very many really and of those 11,000 I would venture to guess that more than half of them never used VB professionally and/or never owned a legit copy of it in the first place.

Screenshot snippet taken this moment:

Attachment 151507

It's pretty amazing to me that an IDE released 19 years ago still competes (in terms of interest) to that degree with the latest Microsoft has to offer.

Also, I've still got code that I use from my DOS PDS Basic days. The main thing I remember having to overcome was the loss of the Field statement. However, with the move to databases and other close proximity functions, even that wasn't so bad. For the most part, just wrap things into a procedure, compile them, and we're off to the races.

Again, that's what's so criminal about what Microsoft did. They took a wonderful language and put it through a meat grinder when they released .NET.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not directly trying to say anything negative about .NET, other than, if I were to attempt an upgrade, I'd consider a language much more portable than .NET.

It's just entirely ... ummm ... bewildering to me that Microsoft has abandoned such a wonderful language, according to many reports, the most popular language on Earth for a few years.

Best Regards,
Elroy

EDIT1: Ok, one last comment and I'm truly going to attempt to disengage from this debate. I'm actually not sure that Microsoft has truly abandoned COM-based-VB. And the proof is in their continued support of the VBA within the Office products. I don't want to start yet another debate about this, but the VBA language is virtually identical to VB6, and a far cry from .NET.