runtime 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

Mike
Mon Mar 10 05:34:54 CDT 2008

"Bill" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF6A5977-6C1A-45E9-A6A0-CB72D405D394@microsoft.com...

> 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

Tyro
Mon Mar 10 15:39:59 CDT 2008

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

"Mike Williams" <mikea@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message
news:OYTChppgIHA.320@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Bill" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BF6A5977-6C1A-45E9-A6A0-CB72D405D394@microsoft.com...
>
>> 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
>
>
>

Bob
Mon Mar 10 16:09:21 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z0hBj.62$p24.36@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, syntactically, of
> Visual Basic

OK...

> and its successor Visual Basic .NET

ROTFLMAO

Ralph
Mon Mar 10 16:18:52 CDT 2008


"Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:uBg7MMvgIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:z0hBj.62$p24.36@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset, syntactically, of
> > Visual Basic
>
> OK...
>
> > and its successor Visual Basic .NET
>
> 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>

Mike
Mon Mar 10 17:01:41 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z0hBj.62$p24.36@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

> 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

Tyro
Mon Mar 10 17:41:19 CDT 2008

There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor.

Tyro

"Mike Williams" <mikea@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message
news:OPhtWpvgIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:z0hBj.62$p24.36@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> Office's Visual Basic for Applications is a subset,
>> syntactically, of Visual Basic
>
> Actually is at once both a subset and a superset, but all of its "subset"
> is understandable to VB6 programmers.
>
>> and its successor Visual Basic .NET and is . . .
>
> VB.Net is NOT the successor to Visual Basic (VB6). VB.Net is a different
> language. Microsoft developed a new and different language and they then
> sprinkled lots of "VB sounding" constructs on top of it in a dishonest
> attempt to fool people into thinking it is merely an "update" to VB6, when
> in fact it is nothing of the sort. The new version of Delphi is just as
> much a successor to VB6 as VB.Net is!
>
> You've obviously been fooled, but we haven't. None of this says anything
> about the actual merits of VB.Net of course. In many ways it may be better
> than VB6 and in many ways it may be worse. It is just "different". If
> Micro$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
>
>
>

Bob
Mon Mar 10 17:57:28 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOiBj.255$6H.55@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor.

"successor" is not the same as "comes after"

Tyro
Mon Mar 10 18:07:41 CDT 2008

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

"Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:uCzsnIwgIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jOiBj.255$6H.55@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> There is no VB 7. Learn to live with it. VB .Net is the successor.
>
> "successor" is not the same as "comes after"
>
>

Bob
Mon Mar 10 18:16:54 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bjBj.259$6H.210@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> 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.

Tyro
Mon Mar 10 19:05:03 CDT 2008

Ah well, this is the way it is.

Tyro

"Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:em84eTwgIHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1bjBj.259$6H.210@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> 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.
>
>
>
>

Mike
Tue Mar 11 08:37:15 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jOiBj.255$6H.55@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

> 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

Mike
Tue Mar 11 08:49:06 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bjBj.259$6H.210@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

> 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

Mike
Tue Mar 11 08:51:05 CDT 2008

"Tyro" <Tyro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P0kBj.74$qS5.36@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

> 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