Finally, cost of Visual Studio Tools (Office 2003)

**MarkLiquorman** · 2003-10-18 11:04

In case any of you hadn't noticed yet, Office 2003 will not have a Developer Edition as it has in the past. Access is still part of the Office 2003 Professional edition, but the Access runtime and the Installation Wizard have been added the Visual Studio Tools package, which will contain:
- Visual Studio Tools for the Office System
- Visual Basic .NET Standard Edition
- Access 2003 Developer Extensions
- SQL Server 2003 Developer Edition

What made this troubling was that the Microsoft website did not provide the cost of this new Tools package anywhere on its website! I finally was able to pry this info out of them. The cost will be:
- $499 (retail) for the full version.
- $199 (retail) for the upgrade version.

Any prior Office Developer Edition qualifies for the upgrade pricing.

**Support4John** · 2003-10-18 12:02

Hi Mark

I have:

Microsoft Office 97 Professional Edition
Microsoft Office 97 Developer Edition - Update (never used)
Microsoft Visual Studio 97 Developer Edition -Upgrade (never used)
Microsoft Office 2000 Developer - Upgrade

Do I understand correctly, to move my development up to Office 2003 and distribute runtimes I nee the following:

Office 2003 Professional edition

**MarkLiquorman** · 2003-10-18 12:17

Yes, if you want to distribute the Access runtime, you would need Office 2003 Pro Edition (upgrade price $399, I think) and the Visual Studio Tools for Office 2003. I personally am revisiting the runtime issue for myself. I may not use it any more. I'm finding more and more offices have Access, and keeping a runtime version updated has seemed more trouble than it's worth. Of course, this could change immediately if I got a big client that didn't have Access at all!

**Support4John** · 2003-10-18 12:44

Thanks for info

With Access 2003 can you set default mdb format to 2000?

John

**charlotte** · 2003-10-18 14:00

Mark,

Don't abandon the runtime! Those offices may have Access but that doesn't mean they have the latest service packs, etc. Trust me, when you're doing remote help on an application, it is a lot easier if you absolutely KNOW they're using the same build as you are. <img src=/S/hairout.gif border=0 alt=hairout width=31 height=23>

**MarkLiquorman** · 2003-10-18 14:14

Okay, but if they already have Access, do you still install the runtime? And what do you have to do to keep it up-to-date with latest pathes, re-install?

I mostly work with local clients (I do mostly custom software), and if they have Access, it is often easier for me to make sure they have latest Offices updates when I go to install. Actually, I was always lucky installing the Access97 runtime (never got to use the Access2000 version), but others I know had all sorts of problems.

**MarkLiquorman** · 2003-10-18 14:15

>>With Access 2003 can you set default mdb format to 2000?<<

John,

Yes, I'm pretty sure you can.

**WendellB** · 2003-10-18 18:00

Yes - the default format is 2000, but you can also choose 2002, and you can convert to 97 as well. It remains to be seen whether you can create .MDE files in all three formats.

**charlotte** · 2003-10-18 19:55

We *always* install the runtime, regardless of whether they have Access on their machines. Our shortcuts are designed to use the runtime engine so that we control what version the application is running under. Our clients are all over the world, and some of them are on drilling rigs in the middle of the North Sea, so we have no say in how the machines are set up or what versions of anything they're running. There are rarely patches that apply to the runtime engine, although I believe there was one for the XP runtime, which had to be applied by the developer to the runtime itself and then a new installer built and sent out.

**MarkLiquorman** · 2003-10-19 11:03

Charlotte,

Don't you ever have conflicts with existing versions? I assume you install everything in a separate directory, but how about things such as Jet, which is normally placed in WindowsSystem. How does your runtime know to use your version of Jet? And, do you use the Installer that comes with Developer or do you use one of the 3rd party installers?

**charlotte** · 2003-10-19 14:56

We do not have problems or conflicts with existing versions, and no we don't every use the MS packaging wizard. We use Wise Installer and SageKey scripts, which are much more flexible and intelligent. Jet itself doesn't get patched, but different versions of Access use different versions of Jet, complete with different filenames. When you apply a Jet service pack, it updates the dlls that go with Jet, not the Jet file itself. The runtime knows what version of Jet it needs, and that's the one it uses. Remember, Jet gets installed by other applications as well, like VB5 and VB6, which install different versions. <img src=/S/shrug.gif border=0 alt=shrug width=39 height=15>

**rvWoody** · 2003-10-19 15:17

Access 2003 does not support VB.NET. It still uses VBA. cfr <post#=303471>post 303471</post#> "Understanding office 2003 and VB" in the General Office Forum. So why do you need the VS Tools in this case??

**charlotte** · 2003-10-19 16:34

Because you need the Access tools to distribute the runtime.

**KevinB** · 2003-10-20 13:06

I heard a rumor that Microsoft acquired some technology from Sagekey that they were including in the next Access Runtime version. Hopefully, MS has licensed enough of the Sagekey scripts so that you can use the MS packaging wizard to install an Access 2003 runtime and not risk damaging any existing Access installations.

I

**charlotte** · 2003-10-20 21:01

We use SageKey scripts but to use them right, you have to be able to tweak them. That doesn't sound like a likely scenario for the Microsoft stepchild (otherwise known as Access).

Thread: Finally, cost of Visual Studio Tools (Office 2003)

Thread Tools