 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Excel / New Users / March 2008runtime error '429' activex component can't create object
We recently moved to "visual studio 2008" . Our addin workd find on our development machine which has Excel 2003 and Excel 2007. When we create the installation package and install onto a machine with only Excel 2003 we get the "runtime error '429' activex component can't create object". Any ideas please. Thanks in advance > We recently moved to "visual studio 2008" Please do not post questions relating to Visual Studio 2008 to this newsgroup (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion). This group is for users of Visual Basic. Although Visual Studio 2008 does actually include something with the words "Basic" and "Visual" in its title, it is not the real Visual Basic. In fact it is a completely different language, an imposter that has been deliberately misdescribed in a dishonest attempt to fool people. Real Visual Basic code, such as would be provided in answers on this newsgroup, does not work in the imposter. You need to post your question to the imposter's newsgroup (I believe they all end in net or something). Mike Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, syntactically, of Visual Basic and its successor Visual Basic .NET and is designed to work with Office applications' objects and properties. Tyro >> We recently moved to "visual studio 2008" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mike > Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, syntactically, of > Visual Basic OK... > and its successor Visual Basic .NET ROTFLMAO > > Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, syntactically, of > > Visual Basic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ROTFLMAO One learns the most amazing things from this newsgroup. I can't wait to find out where VSTO fits into all this. -ralph <g> > Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, > syntactically, of Visual Basic Actually is at once both a subset and a superset, but all of its "subset" is understandable to VB6 programmers. > and its successor Visual Basic .NET and is . . . VB.Net is NOT the successor to Visual Basic (VB6). VB.Net is a different language. Microsoft developed a new and different language and they then sprinkled lots of "VB sounding" constructs on top of it in a dishonest attempt to fool people into thinking it is merely an "update" to VB6, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The new version of Delphi is just as much a successor to VB6 as VB.Net is! You've obviously been fooled, but we haven't. None of this says anything about the actual merits of VB.Net of course. In many ways it may be better than VB6 and in many ways it may be worse. It is just "different". If Micro$oft had not lied to me then I might have actually bought it myself to try it out. But I do not trust Micro$oft, because they lied to me, and so they shall not be getting another penny of my hard earned money. And neither shall I accept a free copy of VB.Net from simply because they have now realised how difficult it is to sell! Mike Mike There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor. Tyro >> Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, >> syntactically, of Visual Basic [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mike > There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor. "successor" is not the same as "comes after" Talk to Microsoft about that. I see no VB7 on the horizon. If Microsoft continues in the future with the .NET languages only, would you not categorize Visual Basic .NET as the successor to Visual Basic 6? Tyro >> There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor. > > "successor" is not the same as "comes after" > Talk to Microsoft about that. I see no VB7 on the horizon. Neither do I. I'm hopeful that some vendor will eventually produce something that fills the hole left by MS abandoning VB. > If Microsoft continues in the future with the .NET languages only, would > you not categorize Visual Basic .NET as the successor to Visual Basic 6? No more than C# or any other dotnet language could be called that. Successor implies continuity and there is none. Ah well, this is the way it is. Tyro >> Talk to Microsoft about that. I see no VB7 on the horizon. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No more than C# or any other dotnet language could be called that. > Successor implies continuity and there is none. > Ah well, this is the way it is. That's a totally meaningless statement! What do you mean by "this". Exactly what is "the way it is"? Talk sense man! Speak English! Mike > Talk to Microsoft about that. I see no VB7 on the horizon. > If Microsoft continues in the future with the .NET languages > only, would you not categorize Visual Basic .NET as the > successor to Visual Basic 6? No. Certainly not. Why should I? It is NOT the successor to VB6. It is a different product that just happens to be made by the same manufacturer. If H.J. Heinz stop making baked beans in tomato sauce (a great favourite over here in the UK) and if they instead produce fried beans in pig's liver and onion gravy I definitely would NOT see the fried beans as being the successor to the baked beans, no matter what H.J. Heinz tried to tell me, and I would not buy them! I would go somewhere else and I would buy my baked beans from them instead! And if nobody else produced anything similar to the baked beans in tomato sauce that I was used to then I would look at all the available alternatives from all manufacturers and I would choose something that I liked, and it would almost certainly not be the fried beans in pig's liver and onion gravy! Sheesh! How can you be so totally taken in by Micro$haft! Have you no mind of your own? Mike > There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. I already KNOW there is no VB7. And yes, I have already learned to live with it. > VB .Net is the successor. No it's not. VB.Net is a new and completely different language. It is NOT the successor to anything. If I want to choose a successor to VB6 then I will chose it myself from one of the many different RAD tools that are available. It may be VB.Net, but it is far more likely not to be because I do not trust Micro$oft, so I will probably choose a RAD tool produced by someone else. Mike |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.