I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are from
users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have been in
the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to turn so
please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute here and
also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant building
Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the requisite "tools of
the trade"...

So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000? Also,
are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if I am
going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN subscription worth
it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help me sort
out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are appreciated.

Bill

William

You are set to go with what you have. I believe XL2000 would have been a
better purchase than XL97 (2000 *is* 97 without some of the bugs)

You have no need for Visual Studio Tools, etc As you grow with VBA you may
wish to push the boundaries with VSTO etc, but you will have a lot of scope
using the tools you have and VBA

In my opinion

--
HTH
Nick Hodge
Microsoft MVP - Excel
Southampton, England
(E-Mail Removed)HIS


"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have
> been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant
> building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the requisite
> "tools of the trade"...
>
> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if
> I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN subscription
> worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help me
> sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> appreciated.
>
> Bill
>
>

The only versions of Office that you should need are the versions used by
your "customer".
This might also apply to your version of Windows. There are some issues
with forward and backward combatibility...

The important thing is your ability to build applications that will work,
and work well. They should be error free, user friendly, and require little
knowledge on the part of the user. And they must meet or exceed the
expectations of the customer.

Best of Luck...
--
steveB

Remove "AYN" from email to respond
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have
> been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant
> building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the requisite
> "tools of the trade"...
>
> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if
> I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN subscription
> worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help me
> sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> appreciated.
>
> Bill
>
>

As with any business, do not spend money until the expense will create a
return. If all your customers have 2003, then you will not need another
version. If you can accomplish the jobs without purchasing the developer kit
or using the MSDN subscription, then do not spend the money.

Start with the tools you have. If you get a job that requires additional
tools, purchase them.

--
Damon Longworth

Don't miss out on the 2005 Excel User Conference
Sept 16th and 17th
Stockyards Hotel - Ft. Worth, Texas
www.ExcelUserConference.com


"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have
> been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant
> building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the requisite
> "tools of the trade"...
>
> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if
> I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN subscription
> worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help me
> sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> appreciated.
>
> Bill
>
>

I am with Nick on this one... I don't see a great need for 97. If anyone is
running anything less than 2000 recomend that they upgrade before you start.
97 can be a pain and the object model is a little thin. 2000 is worth while
as lot of people are still using it. 2002/2003 is a must have as the object
model changed again in 2002, but you may as well get 2003 at this point.
There are a few changes in 2003 from 2002 but nothing to write home about.
--
HTH...

Jim Thomlinson


"Nick Hodge" wrote:

> William
>
> You are set to go with what you have. I believe XL2000 would have been a
> better purchase than XL97 (2000 *is* 97 without some of the bugs)
>
> You have no need for Visual Studio Tools, etc As you grow with VBA you may
> wish to push the boundaries with VSTO etc, but you will have a lot of scope
> using the tools you have and VBA
>
> In my opinion
>
> --
> HTH
> Nick Hodge
> Microsoft MVP - Excel
> Southampton, England
> (E-Mail Removed)HIS
>
>
> "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
> > want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> > from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have
> > been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> > turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> > here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant
> > building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the requisite
> > "tools of the trade"...
> >
> > So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> > 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> > Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if
> > I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN subscription
> > worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help me
> > sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>
>

Steve -- love the reference to 'Combatability' ... how fitting a variation
that is! I am trying to be as versatile as possible without over-spending.
When I bought 2003 I thought I could always save down, but then a thread
started by Ken Loomis (see below) and never resolved made me aware that
creating files in Excel 2003 and saving down still resulted in alerts to the
user about the file's originally being created in a later version -- how
annoying THAT must be! I would expect a lot of potential customers would be
using 2000 still. So I am trying not to be penny wise and pound foolish.
> "Ken Loomis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%23VLT6%(E-Mail Removed)...
> When I save a workbook, I often get the dialog box warning me that the
> file was created with a later version of Excel.

As for being a good developer so that I meet or exceed client needs ... we
all try our best, and tomorrow's best should always be better than today's.
Thanks!!

"STEVE BELL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TKize.11103$kh3.3819@trnddc03...
> The only versions of Office that you should need are the versions used by
> your "customer".
> This might also apply to your version of Windows. There are some issues
> with forward and backward combatibility...
>
> The important thing is your ability to build applications that will work,
> and work well. They should be error free, user friendly, and require
> little knowledge on the part of the user. And they must meet or exceed
> the expectations of the customer.
>
> Best of Luck...
> --
> steveB
>
> Remove "AYN" from email to respond
> "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
>> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
>> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I have
>> been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
>> turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
>> here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance consultant
>> building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the
>> requisite "tools of the trade"...
>>
>> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
>> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
>> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential if
>> I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN
>> subscription worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses
>> which help me sort out my options and neither over-spend not
>> under-prepare are appreciated.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>

Disagree with Nick and Jim on this. 97 is still the most common Office
version in use AFAIK. Also, it is different enough from them to make it
useful (no Split, Instr, Replace etc.)

I think 97 is a good choice. But 200 would be good as well. No need for
2002 if you have 2003 IMO.

--

HTH

RP
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)


"Jim Thomlinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:61A7DAE7-99FB-4908-8DDD-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am with Nick on this one... I don't see a great need for 97. If anyone
is
> running anything less than 2000 recomend that they upgrade before you
start.
> 97 can be a pain and the object model is a little thin. 2000 is worth
while
> as lot of people are still using it. 2002/2003 is a must have as the
object
> model changed again in 2002, but you may as well get 2003 at this point.
> There are a few changes in 2003 from 2002 but nothing to write home about.
> --
> HTH...
>
> Jim Thomlinson
>
>
> "Nick Hodge" wrote:
>
> > William
> >
> > You are set to go with what you have. I believe XL2000 would have been
a
> > better purchase than XL97 (2000 *is* 97 without some of the bugs)
> >
> > You have no need for Visual Studio Tools, etc As you grow with VBA you
may
> > wish to push the boundaries with VSTO etc, but you will have a lot of
scope
> > using the tools you have and VBA
> >
> > In my opinion
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > Nick Hodge
> > Microsoft MVP - Excel
> > Southampton, England
> > (E-Mail Removed)HIS
> >
> >
> > "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if
people
> > > want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> > > from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I
have
> > > been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where
to
> > > turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to
contribute
> > > here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance
consultant
> > > building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the
requisite
> > > "tools of the trade"...
> > >
> > > So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am
missing
> > > 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> > > Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential
if
> > > I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN
subscription
> > > worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which
help me
> > > sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

William,

The best adage is, develop on the lowest version to deploy in.

--

HTH

RP
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)


"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Steve -- love the reference to 'Combatability' ... how fitting a variation
> that is! I am trying to be as versatile as possible without over-spending.
> When I bought 2003 I thought I could always save down, but then a thread
> started by Ken Loomis (see below) and never resolved made me aware that
> creating files in Excel 2003 and saving down still resulted in alerts to
the
> user about the file's originally being created in a later version -- how
> annoying THAT must be! I would expect a lot of potential customers would
be
> using 2000 still. So I am trying not to be penny wise and pound foolish.
> > "Ken Loomis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%23VLT6%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > When I save a workbook, I often get the dialog box warning me that
the
> > file was created with a later version of Excel.
>
> As for being a good developer so that I meet or exceed client needs ... we
> all try our best, and tomorrow's best should always be better than
today's.
> Thanks!!
>
> "STEVE BELL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:TKize.11103$kh3.3819@trnddc03...
> > The only versions of Office that you should need are the versions used
by
> > your "customer".
> > This might also apply to your version of Windows. There are some issues
> > with forward and backward combatibility...
> >
> > The important thing is your ability to build applications that will
work,
> > and work well. They should be error free, user friendly, and require
> > little knowledge on the part of the user. And they must meet or exceed
> > the expectations of the customer.
> >
> > Best of Luck...
> > --
> > steveB
> >
> > Remove "AYN" from email to respond
> > "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if
people
> >> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> >> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I
have
> >> been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> >> turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> >> here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance
consultant
> >> building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the
> >> requisite "tools of the trade"...
> >>
> >> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> >> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> >> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential
if
> >> I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN
> >> subscription worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any
responses
> >> which help me sort out my options and neither over-spend not
> >> under-prepare are appreciated.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Yes but most of his customers are not his customers yet (if you get my
drift). He needs to rope them in, so he has to be able to demonstrate he is
cognisant of their market position. This might mean pitching at a market
niche (e.g. Net, or XP up), or at all versions. That is a business decision
that William has to make when he has studied his market.

--

HTH

RP
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)


"STEVE BELL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TKize.11103$kh3.3819@trnddc03...
> The only versions of Office that you should need are the versions used by
> your "customer".
> This might also apply to your version of Windows. There are some issues
> with forward and backward combatibility...
>
> The important thing is your ability to build applications that will work,
> and work well. They should be error free, user friendly, and require
little
> knowledge on the part of the user. And they must meet or exceed the
> expectations of the customer.
>
> Best of Luck...
> --
> steveB
>
> Remove "AYN" from email to respond
> "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
> > want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
> > from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I
have
> > been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know where to
> > turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to contribute
> > here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a freelance
consultant
> > building Excel and Access applications, so I am asking about the
requisite
> > "tools of the trade"...
> >
> > So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
> > 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
> > Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential
if
> > I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN
subscription
> > worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any responses which help
me
> > sort out my options and neither over-spend not under-prepare are
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>

William,

Well said!!! (and you are Welcome!)

For me it has always been "staying down to the level of my customers".
Once had to stick with 97 when 2000 was so much better.

Keep on Exceling...
--
steveB

Remove "AYN" from email to respond
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Steve -- love the reference to 'Combatability' ... how fitting a variation
> that is! I am trying to be as versatile as possible without over-spending.
> When I bought 2003 I thought I could always save down, but then a thread
> started by Ken Loomis (see below) and never resolved made me aware that
> creating files in Excel 2003 and saving down still resulted in alerts to
> the user about the file's originally being created in a later version --
> how annoying THAT must be! I would expect a lot of potential customers
> would be using 2000 still. So I am trying not to be penny wise and pound
> foolish.
> > "Ken Loomis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%23VLT6%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > When I save a workbook, I often get the dialog box warning me that
> the
> > file was created with a later version of Excel.
>
> As for being a good developer so that I meet or exceed client needs ... we
> all try our best, and tomorrow's best should always be better than
> today's. Thanks!!
>
> "STEVE BELL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:TKize.11103$kh3.3819@trnddc03...
>> The only versions of Office that you should need are the versions used by
>> your "customer".
>> This might also apply to your version of Windows. There are some issues
>> with forward and backward combatibility...
>>
>> The important thing is your ability to build applications that will work,
>> and work well. They should be error free, user friendly, and require
>> little knowledge on the part of the user. And they must meet or exceed
>> the expectations of the customer.
>>
>> Best of Luck...
>> --
>> steveB
>>
>> Remove "AYN" from email to respond
>> "William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I'm interested in advice without starting a debtate online, so if people
>>> want to just e-mail me answers that's great too. I know most posts are
>>> from users seeking advice and usually that is the case with me but I
>>> have been in the software market on a limited budget and don't know
>>> where to turn so please bear with me. I want to be better equipped to
>>> contribute here and also be adequately equipped to operate as a
>>> freelance consultant building Excel and Access applications, so I am
>>> asking about the requisite "tools of the trade"...
>>>
>>> So far I have purchased Office 97 and 2003 Professional, but am missing
>>> 2000. Does every self respecting advisor/trainer/developer need 2000?
>>> Also, are the developer toolkits and the Visual Tools (2003) essential
>>> if I am going to build applications for other people? Is an MSDN
>>> subscription worth it if all I plan are the aforementioned? Any
>>> responses which help me sort out my options and neither over-spend not
>>> under-prepare are appreciated.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>