Got it. Since I'm new to this I've just been going on some assumptions. I
wondered how MS would profit from allowing Office development and
redistribution.

Anyway, thanks for helping to explain. I think the most important reasons
for wanting a stand alone still apply and include some of the ones you
mentioned. I don't really know anyone that doesn't have Office to begin
with. And since the raw data I'm working with is in Excel, it's a moot point
anyway.

Thanks again for clarifying.

"Bob Phillips" wrote:


"Paul Gallagher" (mod) wrote in message
...
Hmm, I thought that that was exactly the point of the Office Developer
editions...to generate solutions (applications, whatever you want to call
them) that operate with the same functionality as a customized excel
workbook
or access database, but that cannot be modified so easily by the user and
do
not require an actual copy of Office to run them.

MS is a business, and a vey good businees (read successful). And how do they
make so much money, by selling millions of copies of OS and Office. It's a
cash cow.

The documentation for Office 2000 developer says that you can deploy
solutions with a distributable and royalty-free MsAccess runtime, and I
assume you can do the same for Excel-type functionality. If every user
would need the office software to run the app, then what's the point of
using
any of the Developer tools? Why not just distribute a workbook?

Flexibility, versatility, and size. A stand-alone is smaller, anjd eaier to
ditribute than a workbook. Actually, if you are not using the Access
functionality, you could probably get away with that by creating the mdb on
your machine, and distribute that as well. Access is not really my forte, so
I am not sure what runtime functionality is provided. But if you want to use
any of the Excel product functionality, be it directly or by automation, you
need that product.

Do you expect to be able to use an Oracle database without an Oracle
licence?