The future of Office?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I notice that if I use the Excel 10.0 object library, the program won't run with Office2000.

What concerns me is that MS keeps pooping out new versions of Office every two to three years. If each one comes with a new object library, will any program that uses an existing library still work with the new version of office? I would expect some backward stability, but is anyone aware of MS statements on this subject?

[RobDog888]

MS has not eally broken backwards compatibility between Office versions. They are just adding to it and building new functions/methods/properties, etc. If you early bind then your requiring your users to have that same version installed on their systems. If you late bind you can determine which version they are running and branch your program out depending on the version and support of features in each version,etc.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'll look at that, as I am using a real simple subset (I think) of functionality.

[RobDog888]

You can search on MS to see how far back a function or method is supported on the oldest version you want to support. If all your code is supported on Excel 2000+ then just trap for a version of 97 and below and messagebox to them that they need 2000+ and exit out gracefully.

[dinosaur_uk]

Will the excel object 10.0 work with excel2003?

[RobDog888]

Yes, but remember that with each new Office release MS tightened up the object model and increased security when accessing certain objects via code.

[Edneeis]

Supposedly with the newer versions of Office (I think XP on) they included an Office.Core component which has the parts that will persist over different versions but still allow you to early bind. I have only read about it though, never tested.

[RobDog888]

Your probably referring to Office PIAs which are only for 2002 (XP) and 2003+. Primary Interop Assemblies.

[Edneeis]

Yes that is what I mean - do you have a link?

Will that do it or is my memory bad?

[RobDog888]

Heres the link over at MS. I think I'll add it to my sig. too.

Office PIAs

[Jacob Roman]

To go along with this topic, and since MS is so into their .NET framework, will Office become Office .NET in the near future, hence also making VBA into VBA.NET?

[RobDog888]

From what I have read is that the next version of Office is supposidly completely based on the .NET framework. Office 2003 was only partially written with .NET in mind, like the PIAs.

Office 12 Beta 1 is being released to a very tight circle of MCPs+ that are also ISVs. You need to pass certain MS Certification tests and have at least a minimum of 2 employees with these new certs in order to "preview" it. I want it now

[techgnome]

To go along with this topic, and since MS is so into their .NET framework, will Office become Office .NET in the near future, hence also making VBA into VBA.NET?

Yes, and no.... .NET will be integrated and VBA will be completely removed.... There will be a new IDE, Office Studio or something like that, which will be a stripped down version of the VS IDE. HOWEVER, the .NET languages (Vb, C#, et al) will be their FULL versions. None of this sub-set of a language crap that VBA is.

Tg

[RobDog888]

I have to disagree with you TG to a point. The new IDE for Office is VSTO 2003/2005 (Visual Studio Tools for Office). It is an additional integration with Visual Studio .NET that provides some Excel and Word Template projects just like VB and C# does. You can write managed code behind the document or workbook that is compiled into supporting dlls for deployment to a server, if you want, and have the app shared across a network and only have to make updates to the dlls and document/workbook file.

I have not see anything yet that suggest that the VBA editor behind each Office app is going to be removed or unsupported. If you think about it, the previous versions of Office apps with VBA code behind them would not even be able to be opened if there was no VBA editor thus breaking the backwards compatibility that MS has not done ever in Office. Usually they always have provided a Converter utility or something to bring the object forward to the newer version being used. It is possible that they would remove VBA support but then they would be shooting themselves in the foot since companies would not want to be forced to re-write any of their apps in order to upgrade. If there is an Office IDE it would more then likely be similar to the VBA editor but with limited .NET support.

w00t w00t 16,000 POSTS!

Gangsta Yoda™ ®

[techgnome]

I have to disagree with you TG to a point. The new IDE for Office is VSTO 2003/2005 (Visual Studio Tools for Office). It is an additional integration with Visual Studio .NET that provides some Excel and Word Template projects just like VB and C# does. You can write managed code behind the document or workbook that is compiled into supporting dlls for deployment to a server, if you want, and have the app shared across a network and only have to make updates to the dlls and document/workbook file.

I have not see anything yet that suggest that the VBA editor behind each Office app is going to be removed or unsupported. If you think about it, the previous versions of Office apps with VBA code behind them would not even be able to be opened if there was no VBA editor thus breaking the backwards compatibility that MS has not done ever in Office. Usually they always have provided a Converter utility or something to bring the object forward to the newer version being used. It is possible that they would remove VBA support but then they would be shooting themselves in the foot since companies would not want to be forced to re-write any of their apps in order to upgrade. If there is an Office IDE it would more then likely be similar to the VBA editor but with limited .NET support.

w00t w00t 16,000 POSTS!

Gangsta Yoda™ ®

True... I didn't think about that.... maybe things have changed since I last heard that info (it was a while ago) and it would make perfect sense that they would need to leave something of VBA .... but it also wouldn't be the first time MS has "Broken" something. Granted, I don't think it was to that degree.

And so it would seem <a href="http://www.eggheadcafe.com/ng/microsoft.public.vsnet.vstools.office/post22405213.asp">you are right</a> something of VBA will be around for some time....


Tg

[RobDog888]

I am using VSTO 2003 and its really great for dealing with Excel and Word. You can do sooooo much more and with less work, just like VB.NET does from VB6. Excel direct data viewing/updating in the sheets just like a DataGrid can in VB.NET. There is even going to be an Outlook plugin for it so the 2005 RTM version will support Excel, Word, and Outlook. They will probably come out with another additional plugin for the next popular Office app (PowerPoint?).

[Shaggy Hiker]

Some good stuff here. It sounds like there may be some advantage to not supporting prior to 2003 if you are only using the core features. I MAY be doing that, so I'll look into it. I don't currently have any need to support anything prior to 2003, so that is a viable option.

[RobDog888]

You may want to support 2002 (XP) since .NET PIAs support it too.
Maybe they know something that we dont? Since MS likes to break backwards compatibility that was strange that they went back and supported Office XP.

[Shaggy Hiker]

2002? I thought there was Office2000, then Office2003. I don't recall a 2002. Did I skip one? Or do I have the 2003 wrong?

[RobDog888]

It goes like this...

Office 95 (7.0)
Office 97 (8.0)
Office 2000 (9.0)
Office 2002 (XP) (10.0)
Office 2003 (11.0)
Office "???" (12.0)

[techgnome]

THere was Office 2000, Office XP (aka 2002), then Office 2003.

Tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

Wow, I missed a whole year....hmmmm, what did I have for breakfast that day?

[RobDog888]

Maybe you need to get some fresh fish for your pot.

Office XP (2002) was the first version to use the translucent blue highlighting in its menus and toolbar buttons. Perhaps you seen it but didnt realize it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, I think our IT department was holding the line at Office2000 because they didn't want to deal with upgrading. Then our fisheries bureau went off and distributed 2003 at a conference and told everybody to upgrade on their own, at which point IT caved in (with a fair amount of whining).

[RobDog888]

Something like that is usually the case. Companies dont like to upgrade unless there is either a valid benefit from upgrading or they are forced to because of some reason. They just thinnk it always costs too much $$$ and cant see the benefits of upgrading.