Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back

[Guest]

With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with VS

2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even Windows 95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career & it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore, while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.

The reality is that outside of the "tech corridors" the rest of businesses
(especially the small businesses that are classic VB users) don't change
things unless there is a cost benefit. That $1000 each year for a new VS
license is a PAIN. The $100 to upgrade to Win XP (usually more like $500
since the hardware requirements are so different) is something a lot of small
business owners don't want. Their systems work. Changing has to have a value.
For what they do with the systems, there is very little value in changing.
They can do office functions & the business functions they need without all
the newest whistles & bells. Why go there. They have something that works.

I have worked with clients that have 1000’s of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

There are millions of Win 98 implementations still out there. Just like
there are millions of VB4, 5, and 6 widgets. Making a technology obsolete is
done so the company that made it (MS in this case) can force you towards the
new stuff & keep the pool of what they maintain manageable. The issue is that
MS has decided to make things obsolete that are still in active use by large
segments of the US & global economy. They are doing that because it costs
them to maintain the old, and because if they allow you to stay with the old
then you are not motivated to buy their new stuff.

The underlying message in these posts is that VB.Net does not provide a
compelling/valuable reason to change. If the target audience was coders, then
the reasons cited would be compelling, but then they could have chosen one of
a half dozen other languages.

VB started out as an “add-on†(also in the box) that got the every day
workers hooked on the fact that with marginal additional work, they could get
a lot more power out of the Win 3.x/9x/… computer they had. It had a VERY low
entry threshold – most non-IT professionals could actually make something
work with it. Reading this thread, it is clearly populated by coders – not
the heartland that made VB classic a hit.

VB.net may be a great tool, but it is not a great tool for the people that
are weekend/after hours hobbyists. The issue is that with the discontinuance
of MS support for Classic VB, they are abandoning the audience that made it a
hit.

The graveyard is full of companies that loose sight of their core
constituents and refuse to support backward compatibility time will tell if
MS is drifting into those ranks…

 

[Ray Cassick \(Home\)]

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.

 

[Ray Cassick \(Home\)]

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.

Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a company
'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?

I loved VB6. I started out as a hobbyist coder and ended up making it my
profession. I coded morning noon and night using VB starting with VB1. But
you have to face facts that classic VB had it's limitations and it's short
sides.

Not one single person is forcing you to change platforms and languages. If
you still have a base of people using Windows 2000 and your old VB6 apps for
the next several years then by all means you obviously have no need to
change a winning combination. BUT, you cannot tell me that there is no
benefit to VB.NET on the newer platforms.

The reality is that outside of the "tech corridors" the rest of businesses
(especially the small businesses that are classic VB users) don't change
things unless there is a cost benefit. That $1000 each year for a new VS
license is a PAIN. The $100 to upgrade to Win XP (usually more like $500
since the hardware requirements are so different) is something a lot of
small
business owners don't want. Their systems work. Changing has to have a
value.
For what they do with the systems, there is very little value in changing.
They can do office functions & the business functions they need without
all
the newest whistles & bells. Why go there. They have something that works.

I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

Ok, but again lets face facts here. DOS is dead. I don't care what arguments
you have, face it. 8 & 16 bit land went out with Nintendo. I don't care if
the apps are still chugging along, sooner or latter there is going to come a
time when these apps are going to outlive their usefulness and then there
will have to be a change. Again, no one is forcing anyone to stop using
these apps, so fine, keep using them. Do you honestly think that MS should
be forced to continue to develop the old versions of DOS or basic just be
cause they still have some places using it?

There are millions of Win 98 implementations still out there. Just like
there are millions of VB4, 5, and 6 widgets. Making a technology obsolete
is
done so the company that made it (MS in this case) can force you towards
the
new stuff & keep the pool of what they maintain manageable. The issue is
that
MS has decided to make things obsolete that are still in active use by
large
segments of the US & global economy. They are doing that because it costs
them to maintain the old, and because if they allow you to stay with the
old
then you are not motivated to buy their new stuff.

So keep using them... But don't force them to continue to develop and
enhance an old language in parallel. That is nothing but a drain on
resources that could be best used elsewhere.

The underlying message in these posts is that VB.Net does not provide a
compelling/valuable reason to change. If the target audience was coders,
then
the reasons cited would be compelling, but then they could have chosen one
of
a half dozen other languages.

Reasons?

Stability
Remoting (beats DCOM to hell)
Web Services
Better OOP
An IDE that works with more than just VB
Common type system
GC (yeah I also miss deterministic Finalization too)
....the list goes on and on...

VB started out as an "add-on" (also in the box) that got the every day
workers hooked on the fact that with marginal additional work, they could
get
a lot more power out of the Win 3.x/9x/. computer they had. It had a VERY
low
entry threshold - most non-IT professionals could actually make something
work with it. Reading this thread, it is clearly populated by coders - not
the heartland that made VB classic a hit.

No, they are telling them that there is something better, the next
generation of development platforms is here and if you staty in the past
then you are going to left behind servicing your customers who are
eventually going to start asking for more than your legacy code can offer.

VB.net may be a great tool, but it is not a great tool for the people that
are weekend/after hours hobbyists. The issue is that with the
discontinuance
of MS support for Classic VB, they are abandoning the audience that made
it a
hit.

And my old Chevy Chevette was a great first car. Good on gas, hauled ass
when I needed it, hatch back to carry things, etc... but then I learned that
I wanted something with more HP, better handling and a sleeker look. Did I
HAVE to give up my first car? Nope. And I still know people to this day that
drive old crapper cars from the 70's and 80's because they are simple to fix
and tune up... But when they start to have a hard time finding parts, or
find out that the old cars are not keeping up with emissions standards they
are going to have a rude awakening aren't they....

The graveyard is full of companies that loose sight of their core
constituents and refuse to support backward compatibility time will tell
if
MS is drifting into those ranks.

Time will also tell for those that refused to change with the times.

 

[Michael D. Ober]

In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.

Mike Ober.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.

LOL,

Good point by the way

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Mitchel,

There were evolutionary and revolutionary changes along the way. But
they're all cars.

A car is forever a car, however therefore is a Gogomobil not direct a
Ferrari.

With what I don't tell that VBNet is not a VB type language like VBS, VBA
and VB6 are too.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jim,

I haven't played with it as much as I need to.....but I like what I see so
far. I will let you know more as I continue to test (when I have the time
to).

Jim Hubbard

And when you have done that you will take probably all back what you have
written including the distribution of Net.



Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Herfried,

I see no reaction on my answers to you in the other thread. In that thread
are you to my suprise telling that there is no need for any update or extra
support.

Both reactions from me on that have no reaction. May I assume that by giving
no reaction you agree about that.

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.

They will notice when they update to SP6, experience its bugs, and want to
obtain a fix.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a
company 'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?

Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't work
any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for a
software product which was used to create data without providing a viable
upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you completely
miss the point.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

I see no reaction on my answers to you in the other thread. In that thread
are you to my suprise telling that there is no need for any update or
extra support.

Both reactions from me on that have no reaction. May I assume that by
giving no reaction you agree about that.

Mhm... It seems that I missed some of the responses to my posts. Can you
post a Google link?

 

[Rob Nicholson]

I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still

deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

Isn't this counter to the argument?. Surely DOS 3.1 isn't supported anymore
by Microsoft, neither are the langauge tools used to write the programs
running under DOS. The systems have continued to run without support. So
therefore will (say) Windows 2000 running VB6 applications for a good many
years to come.

Rob.

 

[Rob Nicholson]

This is surely the most efficient method of getting the word out, and

should give us (within a month) a real idea of how many classic VB
developers want a better migration tool and extended support for classic
VB.

I'm going to be sacrastic but guys, it's time to move on Come on in, the
water's fine.

We've got a pretty big VB6 application that cost a lot to develop. It's six
years old and reached maturity about two years ago. When it's replaced, we
will effectively be starting again - not only has the market changed in
requirements (we have to be a lot more web friendly) but we've also changed.
We've learnt new ways of doing things - having to start again is probably a
good thing.

Rob.

 

[Rob Nicholson]

VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at

improving Visual Basic, including RAD.

Here here, the VB.NET environment is a big step forwards but most of the
benefits come from the .NET framework which is IMHO a pretty well thought
out set of objects and libraries.

The bits of the language borrowed from C++ like inheretence, overloading and
extended encapsulation (like protected, friend etc) undoubtly make the
language more, err, grown-up.

I recently had to make a slight code change to our major VB6 project and
re-loaded VB6 for the first time in about six months. Boy did it feel clunky


Rob.

 

[Rob Nicholson]

Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming

language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about.

Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way the
C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed to
improve it.

I remember a time when there were hundreds of variants of BASIC.

Rob.

 

[Rob Nicholson]

2) The RAD feel/ability to develop applications is gone. Edit and

continue was great - and should be back in VB.Net 2005. Make it simple!
Our jobs

True, I was a bit surprised when this disappeared.

everywhere we distribute applications? Thinstall can wrap all needed .Net

Ohh please dont' start that again

Rob.

 

[Ray Cassick \(Home\)]

Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't work
any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for a
software product which was used to create data without providing a viable
upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you
completely miss the point.

Ok then, lets use the analogy of the machines that create the cars then.

Just because some people still want to use old cars that were made back in
the 70's and 80s' should the car manufactures be required to maintain the
line (tooled in the old way) that created them and their parts while at the
same time maintaining the newer lines for the newer cars?

VB6 = classic VW bug
VB.NET = the newer style

Both made by the same company...
One old, one newer with more (better) features...
The new one could not be built using the older technology that created the
older one...
There was a group of people that were highly pissed when the new one came
out because it 'was different'. They also complained that it was not
'classic' and that the flood of new ones was lowering the value of all the
classic ones left today.

 

[JohnBoy]

For Sale: One dead horse. Has been beaten for 3 weeks. Otherwise it's in
fine condition.

Price: $99.00 or best offer.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way
the C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed
to improve it.

That's true, Visual Basic has never been standardized. However, is this an
excuse for Microsoft to dispose customers' assets?

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Rob,

Here here, the VB.NET environment is a big step forwards but most of the
benefits come from the .NET framework which is IMHO a pretty well thought
out set of objects and libraries.

That's your personal opinion, but there are people who would disagree.

The bits of the language borrowed from C++ like inheretence, overloading
and extended encapsulation (like protected, friend etc) undoubtly make the
language more, err, grown-up.

The features were not borrowed from C++. PIE are theoretical concepts which
were implemented in C++, for example, but in many other programming
languages too. BTW: 'Friend' was available in VB6 too.