[RESOLVED] Is VB 6.0 Really Dead ????? is it free now ?????

[bastyoneal]

I am wondering what's the status of VB 6.0 right now ... I searched the net and said that the microsoft stop the support on it .... correct if im wrong .... is it true .... then if it is .... can i use and download it for free legally???

[Shaggy Hiker]

Why would you want to? You can get a free version of .NET from MS. 2010 Express is out there, and 2008 Express is probably still around, as well.

[HowTo]

do you want to earn money bt selling the product that you built on vb6.0 or you just want to use it for learning purpose?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Not another Is vb6 dead thread !!

Yes Microsoft have stopped supporting it.

Yes in future versions of windows after Windows 7 anything written in VB6 will most likely not work.

No that does not mean that they will just give you a free version of Visual Studio 6. In fact you probably cant even buy it new anymore (not that i have tried)

No you should not be using VB6 unless you really have to !

Yes you should be downloading a FREE copy of VB.Net express editions and use that instead.

[si_the_geek]

Just because a product is no longer supported it does not change the legal status of piracy etc, it just means that using the product is less wise than it was (and as it was already at least 3 versions out of date, it wasn't overly wise before).

What NeedSomeAnswers posted is correct... and there is a bit more information on this topic in the article Where can I get VB6? Is starting to learn VB6 a good idea? from our Classic VB FAQs (in the FAQ forum).

[JuggaloBrotha]

Yay, another "vb6 is dead?" thread, can we just close it now before another flame war starts?

[RhinoBull]

Yay, another "vb6 is dead?" thread...

So what? People ask questions and someone needs to answer - that's how it works.
I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if someone said "Oh, no! Not again..." to any of your questions, would you?

[dilettante]

Yes in future versions of windows after Windows 7 anything written in VB6 will most likely not work.

There is no evidence for this. The very same thing was said here about support in Vista and then Windows 7.

We won't know the truth until Microsoft announces it.

[bastyoneal]

Thanks for all your replies ...... it really helps me .......

[NeedSomeAnswers]

There is no evidence for this. The very same thing was said here about support in Vista and then Windows 7.

Since the initial release of this support statement, the Windows 7 operating system has been announced. This document has been updated to clarify Microsoft’s support for VB6 on Windows 7.

VB6 runtime will ship and will be supported in Windows 7 for the lifetime of the OS. Developers can think of the support story for Vista being the same as it is for Windows 7. However there are no plans to include VB6 runtime in future versions of Windows beyond Windows 7.

Directly from the MSDN Website here

So i think my statement that VB6 Is unlikely to be supported in windows after windows 7 is perfectly valid statement.

[Hack]

All is says is that that is no plans to include the runtimes.

It doesn't say that even if you bundle the runtimes on your own in an installation and setup package, your program will not run.

[Nightwalker83]

So i think my statement that VB6 Is unlikely to be supported in windows after windows 7 is perfectly valid statement.

While, it says there are no plans for it to happen you can't say it won't happen because Microsoft may decide to do it in the future.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

While, it says there are no plans for it to happen you can't say it won't happen because Microsoft may decide to do it in the future.

Which is why i used the Word "Unlikely" and not the word "Wont".

[RhinoBull]

It's a bad habbit to speculate about things we cannot possibly answer - it would be much "safer" to say what we know for the fact: VB6 runtimes are supported for now (7 to 10 years).
What happens next? Who knows... so let's just be patient...

[Shaggy Hiker]

Be patient, yes, but let's not encourage somebody to find a way to acquire VB6 when there are free versions of .NET readily available. There just isn't a good reason to go to all that effort.

[RhinoBull]

I don't disagree witrh you SH at all - I just don't like people speculating over something they don't know.
And btw, I always encourage people to get a free copy of .Net.

[dilettante]

Directly from the MSDN Website here

So i think my statement that VB6 Is unlikely to be supported in windows after windows 7 is perfectly valid statement.

No, it's not particularly unlikely at all.

That's the same page that's been cited in the past, and as each new OS has been released the same page has been updated. You'll have a hard time finding anything in writing saying .Net is supported in the next version of Windows.


None of that has anything to do with the fact that people generally shouldn't be picking up VB6 today and learning it. I encourage newbies to go to VB.Net instead, and have for some time. It is a complete mystery to me why we keep seeing newbs in the VB6 forums at this late date.

[Nightwalker83]

Which is why i used the Word "Unlikely" and not the word "Wont".

I agree with what RhinoBull and dilettante are saying you shouldn't speculate on what may or may not happen. Also, when researching information on something make sure your opinion is supported generally not just by one or two articles.

[esposito]

It is a complete mystery to me why we keep seeing newbs in the VB6 forums at this late date.

The solution to this mystery may just be found in a four-letter word: SIZE.

[baja_yu]

Size of the IDE or the distribution package (.Net framework)?

[gep13]

The solution to this mystery may just be found in a four-letter word: SIZE.

I have a feeling I am going to regret asking this question, but....

Size of what?

[esposito]

Size of the IDE or the distribution package (.Net framework)?

Size of the distribution package. I have recently made friends with a couple of former VB6 developers who have switched to Delphi and I have asked them why they had not chosen .NET. In spite of what many of you have already said in this forum, they believe that the size of the Framework is a serious deterrent. They basically confirm what I have been saying for ages. The fact that Vista and Seven contain the FW does not solve the main problem: most people are still using XP where the presence of the .NET FW cannot be taken for granted.

[baja_yu]

With that I agree, but FW 4 addresses that with a size of about 35MB (compared to around 250 for previous versions).

[esposito]

With that I agree, but FW 4 addresses that with a size of about 35MB (compared to around 250 for previous versions).

Doesn't FW 4 rest on previous versions, which must be present on the machine?

[JuggaloBrotha]

Doesn't FW 4 rest on previous versions, which must be present on the machine?

Yes it does.

[esposito]

Yes it does.

So the real size of FW 4 is 35MB + 250MB. This should give an answer to dilettante's mystery.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, it rests on 2.0, which was pushed out via auto updates to XP a couple years back. People who don't have autoupdates, and have never used any .NET program (even some video cards include it these days, though I can only assume that it is not for the drivers, but for other support programs) might still be lacking that core of the framework, but those folks are rare.

Of course, when you see the size of 7/Vista, that framework is nothing but a fly speck. In this age, where systems need a couple GB of RAM to run well, the small hard drives are nearly half a TB, and photos take up more memory than my original computer had (well, my original PC, that is, as my first computer had 4K RAM and no HD), size is not an issue, it's just a question of how you use it.

There are people out there who have sufficiently archaic hardware that size is critical to them, but they are a vanishing minority.

[IanS]

At first it was the size of the framework that put me off developing my own shareware apps in .Net (Dialup just too slow) but with broadband the size isn't such a problem anymore.

My gripe isn't the 'size' of the framework anymore. It's that when I download other developer's apps, tools and utilities from the internet they invariably demand a specific version of the framework. Even though I already have the framework installed they often demand an OLDER version of the framework so I have to go off somewhere and download that version too just to please the installer (why is that ? bad installer setup ?)

If I'm testing a trial version of software and it tells me to go and download a version of the framework then I simply uninstall/quit the installation and go and look for something else.

In my experience a VB6 application just works right out of the box.

Although at this stage I don't think I'd start a brand new project using VB6 - I think I'd take serious look at other, non-ms, development environments because I just get sick of seeing those prompts to download version x of the framework.

[JuggaloBrotha]

At first it was the size of the framework that put me off developing my own shareware apps in .Net (Dialup just too slow) but with broadband the size isn't such a problem anymore.

My gripe isn't the 'size' of the framework anymore. It's that when I download other developer's apps, tools and utilities from the internet they invariably demand a specific version of the framework. Even though I already have the framework installed they often demand an OLDER version of the framework so I have to go off somewhere and download that version too just to please the installer (why is that ? bad installer setup ?)

If I'm testing a trial version of software and it tells me to go and download a version of the framework then I simply uninstall/quit the installation and go and look for something else.

In my experience a VB6 application just works right out of the box.

Although at this stage I don't think I'd start a brand new project using VB6 - I think I'd take serious look at other, non-ms, development environments because I just get sick of seeing those prompts to download version x of the framework.

Considering you can have all of the Frameworks installed all at once because they install side by side (FW 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 stack on each other, so there's a dependency to have vX and it's previous versions) you're talking nothing by gibberish, there's never a need to go get a different version of the FW. The installer can have any version of the FW as a requirement and once you get that version, you have that version and nothing else will require you to go get it again. I've always got all the versions installed so I'm never prompted to go get it, it helps that I've got Win7 so I have all versions installed (except 4.0) out of the box

[dilettante]

Well Framework size, spin, charm, flavor, etc. might be of concern to anyone who needs to deploy applications (something most programmers seem to treat as a dark mystery anyway). How does this impact the decision of the Hello World crowd though?

I'm more curious why so many people choose VB6 while they're at the level where the difference between Sub and Function is still a revelation.

[IanS]

you're talking nothing by gibberish

Bear with me oh wise one - grasshopper trying to learn here.

As a developer then if I want to make an application that needs, for example, 3.5 then I need to deploy 3.5 and ALL previous versions with my application ? because the user of my application may still be on v1.0

Or do you simply assume that your user has the required version and not deploy any version of the framework at all and your user will just have to go and get the required version (VERSIONS) if he doesn't.

[baja_yu]

As a developer then if I want to make an application that needs, for example, 3.5 then I need to deploy 3.5 and ALL previous versions with my application ? because the user of my application may still be on v1.0

It doesn't mean that you have to package 250MB of frameworks with every application. What you can/should do is programm the installer to detect if the required framework is missing and download/install it on the fly.

[esposito]

At first it was the size of the framework that put me off developing my own shareware apps in .Net (Dialup just too slow) but with broadband the size isn't such a problem anymore.

My gripe isn't the 'size' of the framework anymore. It's that when I download other developer's apps, tools and utilities from the internet they invariably demand a specific version of the framework. Even though I already have the framework installed they often demand an OLDER version of the framework so I have to go off somewhere and download that version too just to please the installer (why is that ? bad installer setup ?)

If I'm testing a trial version of software and it tells me to go and download a version of the framework then I simply uninstall/quit the installation and go and look for something else.

In my experience a VB6 application just works right out of the box.

Although at this stage I don't think I'd start a brand new project using VB6 - I think I'd take serious look at other, non-ms, development environments because I just get sick of seeing those prompts to download version x of the framework.

Very wise words. Obviously, for a lot of people the size does not count, but if you are a producer of shareware applications, you just can't risk it. People get bored very easily when they download from the Internet and asking them to install a certain version of the Framework may invite them to look elsewhere for less problematic (native/unmanaged) software.

[esposito]

I'm more curious why so many people choose VB6 while they're at the level where the difference between Sub and Function is still a revelation.

Have you thought of how long it takes to install VB6 in comparison with VB.NET? And have you thought that an inexperienced programmer may just lose his bearings in front of the VB.NET IDE, whereas the VB6 one may look much more user-friendly to him?

[baja_yu]

Install speed of the IDE or any development component shouldn't be of any matter to an even mildly serious programmer. Also, I don't see much difference in IDE complexity comparing VB6 and .Net 2010. In fact, it might be more of a problem for old VB6 programmers to adapt as they are used to the old one, but for fresh ones it's no different either way.

I mean, how is this any less user-friendly than VB6's IDE?

[gep13]

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

.Net 4.0, is a completely separate CLR, and can be installed standalone.

Gary

[gep13]

Have you thought of how long it takes to install VB6 in comparison with VB.NET? And have you thought that an inexperienced programmer may just lose his bearings in front of the VB.NET IDE, whereas the VB6 one may look much more user-friendly to him?

That is completely subjective. Everyone has their own opinion on this, and you are simply stating your opinion.

Gary

[esposito]

No it doesn't.

.Net 4.0, is a completely separate CLR, and can be installed standalone.

Gary

Can you please support your statement quoting your source?

[esposito]

That is completely subjective. Everyone has their own opinion on this, and you are simply stating your opinion.

Gary

You may be right about the complexity of the IDEs, which could be subjective, but please don't tell me that installing VB.NET and its Framework takes less time than VB6.

[baja_yu]

I know I already pointed this out, but what does the speed of IDE insatllation have anything to do with the discussion?! In fact, what does it have to do with anything in the universe? The users of the software you make don't have to install it, and you have to install it only once. Even if it lasts 3 hours, go to lunch, watch a movie, it's not like you have to copy each file manually.