Increased Demand for Cross-Platform Applications

It’s been a busy couple of weeks so I haven’t been posting much.  I have a number of things going on:  New and updated products, Real Studio training, and consulting projects are eating up a lot of time.  Free time?  What’s that?

It’s always nice to be quoted in someone else’s press release.  Real Software issued a press release last Friday about an increase in leads for cross-platform projects.  I was quoted a number of times about our experience as Real Studio consultants.  This one, perhaps, is the conversation I have the most often with our VB6 conversion clients:

According to Keeney, many of his clients have made the decision that sticking with Microsoft for another 10 years is not in their best interests. It means learning a new development environment (.NET) and still not being able to support the Mac. “The only other alternative is to have separate projects — one in .NET and one in xCode, and take their chances,” Keeney added. “Most desire to have the same code base for both platforms and deal with the same developers for each one.”

Mac support is a huge reason why people are looking at Real Studio and coming to us to do the work.  It’s a good time to be a Real Studio developer in my opinion.

Despite my initial misgivings on Web Edition, I think it’s a good addition to our toolkit.  We’ve done a number of projects in Web Edition that we would have turned down a year ago for lack of experience in web technologies.  It’s nice to be able to leverage our decade of experience in Real Studio into a new area.  That’s lead to some very fun and interesting projects.

Anyway, that’s my quick thought for the day.  What’s been your experience?

Visual Basic 6 TIOBE Index

The TIOBE index for programming languages is an interesting visual perspective on programming languages.  Take a look at the graph for the trend of Visual Basic since 2002.

Visual Basic seems to have taken a big hit at the end of 2004.  I’m not entirely sure of why this happened because .NET had been released in February of 2002 in Visual Studio.  Visual Studio 2003 was released in April of 2003 and the next update was Visual Studio 2005 which was released in November of 2005.  Vista was released in January of 2007 so I don’t believe it has anything to do with the operating system either.

Perhaps what’s interesting is that it nearly regains its former popularity in about two years.  Could this have been a reaction that people found .NET to not be as easy to use as VB6?  I know that some people were dismayed that VB.NET wasn’t much like VB6 and abandoned it – especially since Microsoft operating systems weren’t breaking their old VB6 apps.

Since the midway point of 2009 it seems like the bottom has dropped out in VB6 popularity.  Could it be because Microsoft officially ended support for VB6?  Again, speculation on my part, but that is about the time that I started seeing an influx of requests for quotes from people wanting to convert their VB6 apps to Real Studio.

Another huge drop happened in early 2011.  Was this due to the confusion of whether or not Windows 8 will support VB6 applications?  Perhaps.  I have seen another increase, in the same timeframe, of people looking to convert from Visual Basic to Real Studio.

Is Real Studio (i.e. REALbasic) the right choice for your Visual Basic 6 application?  The answer is a qualified maybe.  If you want one code base that works the same on Macintosh OS X, Windows, and Linux and perhaps a similar code base for a web app (Web Edition has separate UI classes than the desktop) then Real Studio might be a good fit.

If you’re looking at converting to Real Studio please do your homework.  Learn a little bit about the language (<shameless plug>Like my training videos<\shameless plug>) and work with it a bit.  Do NOT depend upon any VB6 to RB converters working – there are simply too many things that REALbasic is better at.  You’re better off rewriting your app to take advantage of moderns things like subclassed controls and threading rather than try to force a Real Studio app to behave like a VB6 app.

My final bit of advice is to forget about your ActiveX controls you’ve spent so much money on.  They probably won’t work and they won’t work on the Mac or Linux anyway.  Find and switch to an equivalent, if possible, but you’ll probably create some of your own subclassed controls.  In the long run you need to think in RB-speak rather than VB6-speak.

Real Studio, in the long run, is pretty inexpensive compared to Visual Studio, in my opinion.  I know people that thought of nothing of dropping over $1000 per year per developer on control suites.  Real Studio is much cheaper from that perspective since subclassing controls, canvas controls, and container controls eliminate the need for much of those expensive suites.  The drawback is that you end up doing the work yourself rather than some other developer.  And some things just can’t be done in RB that you might have come to expect in VB6 (like specialized controls in a grid cell) simply because on the Mac or Linux there is no equivalent.

If you want to convert your VB6 app to Real Studio, you can take a look at our conversion page at

Will VB6 Apps Continue to Work in Windows 8?

Will VB6 Apps Continue to Work in Windows 8?  That single question has driven more traffic to this website in the past month than nearly any other question.  I believe VB6 still has a very large user base so it’s very pertinent question for many organizations and developers.  Perhaps Real Studio is an option for them, but we’ll get to that at the end of the post.

Visual Basic 6 is 20 years old.  It’s stood the test of time and it while it’s showing its age it still functions and apps written on it still run in Vista and Windows 7.  To its credit, Microsoft has made sure that this venerable product still runs on modern computers.

But the question of Windows 8 compatibility has hit the fan, so to say, in the past month or so with Microsoft saying that apps can be written in html and javascript.  That threw many developers into a tizzy.

I don’t believe for a second that Microsoft is abandoning .NET, Win32 or COM simply because those are the foundation for nearly everything ever written at Microsoft.  It simply doesn’t make sense for Microsoft to move to another set of API’s even if you believe that Microsoft moves to a new technology every now and then to make themselves a moving target.  If anything, I believe that this might simply be a new way to develop apps but not replace anything.

While doing research for this post I ran across an unattributed quote supposedly from a person in Microsoft Support:

“We can’t make an official comment on our Windows 8 plans yet but it would be a likely outcome that VB6 applications will continue to work. “

I believe that statement but it’s not exactly a definitive statement.  The real question, I think, is how bad will it suck?  VB6 apps work in Windows 7 but without some work they look like they’re from the 90’s.  Most app developers I know don’t want their apps to look that dated.

Microsoft has stated that the Visual Basic 6 runtimes will not ship after Window 7.  This presumably means Windows 8 and beyond.  I have heard that Windows 8 will be 64 bit only and that means that the VB6 runtimes will either not work at all or will have to be run in some sort of compatibility layer.  So this means that existing apps MAY work, but only after jumping through hoops to install the runtime libraries and making sure the compatibility is set.

Let’s face it.  VB6 is an old, old development environment.  It was written in an age where computers didn’t have much memory and only one processor.  Threading isn’t impossible, but the few times I tried to get it working in a VB6 app the result was instability and crashes.  Threading is such an important thing in modern applications.

VB6 is object oriented – somewhat.  For the time it was state of the art but since subclassing controls is impossible it makes for interesting workarounds and wrappers.  Frankly it makes life more complicated than it needs to be.

Twenty years ago, VB6 was the cats-meow.  The Macintosh was around but it was considered a toy (I disagree but that’s not the argument) and few cared about it.  Microsoft was pretty much the only game in town.  Linux hadn’t been invented yet and the internet was for a few hard core geeks.

This is where Real Studio starts to look more attractive.  It works the same on Mac, Windows, and Linux.  Web Edition brings some of the same ease of developing desktop apps to the web.  In Real Studio I can subclass controls and objects (for the most part) all day long.  It’s a modern object oriented programming language.  Is it without foibles and inconsistencies?  Certainly not, but it’s way more powerful than VB6 in many ways.  Threading isn’t perfect, but it’s still light years ahead of VB6.

We’ve seen an uptick recently with people asking us to convert their VB6 application to Real Studio.  Our VB6 Analyzer utility (found at has been downloaded a lot recently.  It allows users to scan their VB6 project and sends us a simple report detailing the number of forms, classes, libraries and OCX’s in use and lines of code and some other simple metrics.  It’s no substitute for seeing the whole project but it gives us a nice way to guestimate the costs of rewriting the app in Real Studio.

Notice that I said rewrite the application.  The only thing that Visual Basic and RealBasic have in common is that they have ‘basic’ in the name.  It’s like comparing a computer from twenty years ago to a modern computer.  Real Studio does things so much easier, better, and faster than Visual Basic that it’s really not worth trying to convert it line by line or even form by form.  Believe me we’ve tried – the end result is that you end up spending as much time fixing VB6 code that has a better equivalent in RB than it would be to just rewrite it from scratch.

Is Real Studio a suitable replacement for every app?  The answer is simple:  no.  Real Studio makes a really good cross-platform app, but that doesn’t always mean it will have all of the buzzers and bells available in development environments meant for each platform (grids in Windows come come to mind).

We are Real Studio consultants.  That’s what we do and we’ve been doing it for ten years.  Most of us spent a fair amount of time in Visual Basic before moving to Real Studio.  If you decide to do the transition yourself you will hate it at first because Real Studio is different than VB.  We all went through it and for a while you want Real Studio to be just like Visual Basic – trust me it’s not – and after you stop trying make Real Studio function like VB6 you’ll start to like it and get it.  Transitions are never easy.  For training videos, we have over 30 hours available at plus you could always hire us to come on site for training.

If you have VB6 project you want to transition please drop us a line and we can talk.  If you want to get multiple Real Studio developers looking at your project, make a post at which gets sent out to the Real Studio developers network.

Is Windows 8 the End of VB6 Support?

I was a Visual Basic developer for many years.  Despite the perception that VB 6 made crappy apps, I know of many successful commercial apps that were written in VB6 and, what matters more, is that those apps are still in service.  Despite Microsoft dropping support for VB6 years ago developers were able to limp along and get their apps working in Vista and Windows 7 with few headaches.

Does this change with Windows 8?  I don’t know, but I’m already seeing an uptick in developers that are looking to convert from Visual Basic 6 to Real Studio.  Uncertainty is a bad thing and even the full-time Windows developers I know don’t seem to know what’s going on.  Some of them are even worried that .NET and Silverlight support is up in the air.

The only thing that’s been mentioned for Win8 is JavaScript and HTML5.  No mention of .NET, Silverlight, or even Win32.  It’s very uncharacteristic of Microsoft to be so secretive and up-in-the-air over a future product.  Are they trying to be more Apple-like?  Perhaps that’s why people are freaking out.

Do I think MS is going to drop support for .NET, Silverlight, or even Win32?  Not a chance.  They have way too much invested in each of those to abandon them.  From a corporate standpoint there would be a revolt since almost everyone has invested, heavily, in one or more of those technologies/platforms.

But are Visual Basic 6 apps still safe?  That is a very good question and from the research I’ve done it appears that the VB6 runtime will not be shipped with Win8 though some in the community suspect that a hack will be found before release.  Other comments I’ve seen indicate that Win8 will ship as only 64 bit.  The VB6 runtime is 32bit only so that will mean running in compatibility mode which adds to the possibility of it not working properly for all applications.

Microsoft, at some point, has to kill compatibility.  Visual Basic is an old development environment that doesn’t take advantage of many new technologies.  It’s also not a very good object oriented language – it just wasn’t designed to be that way.  If the MS dev tools of the future are Silverlight, .NET, and JavaScript/HTML5 (does anyone really believe that!?), then it sure seems that VB6 might be on its way out.

So while VB6 apps might work with Win8 using hacks and compatibility mode, I believe developers have every right to be worried.  They’ve invested heavily in VB6 tools and controls and now the (long) honeymoon is over and it’s time to look at alternatives.

If you are only interested in Microsoft then the options are easy with .NET or Silverlight (assuming they aren’t going away).  If you’re thinking of a Mac or Linux version than the options are limited.  You could do Java, but as a long-time Mac user I’m not a big Java fan and try to avoid them because their UI generally isn’t native (I’m a Mac snob, but then most of us are).  Qt is a possibility but it’s not a RAD option either.

I am a little biased but I think Real Studio is a good choice for those coming from Visual Basic.  They are very much alike in how they work though REALbasic is MUCH better at object oriented programming than VB ever was.  It’s newer and is on a regular update schedule.  And, with just a little work, you can easily make apps for Mac, Windows, and Linux that look the same on all three platforms.  And now that Real Studio can make Web Apps there’s a fourth platform that you could potential support (though making a web app involves different controls, editors, etc so it’s not as easy as clicking a checkbox).

Is it a quick and easy conversion?  No.  Don’t trust any conversion program and, from experience, any converter will be just as time consuming (if not slightly worse) as rewriting from scratch.  We’ve found that taking a look at the UI and making it a bit more object oriented to take advantage of the strengths of REALbasic is always worth the investment.  We like to say you’re writing the apps for the next ten years and not only for right now.  So doing the extra work now will pay off for years.

Is Real Studio perfect?  Absolutely not.  It currently is not 64 bit compatible either though I know of many developers that have no issues with running in Windows 7 64 bit.  I do know that 64 bit compatibility is the next big upgrade for Windows after Real Software finishes up on Cocoa builds for the Macintosh side.  If memory serves they are on track for late 2011 64 bit compatibility (though that’s always subject to change).

With Win8 on schedule to be released next year (does anyone really believe that either?), you might need to be proactive and start thinking about the alternatives now.  Waiting until Win8 is released might be too late for your product.  Do you really want to be under the gun from management to get something that works on the CEO’s new shiny Win8 laptop?

If you would like to get a rough estimate on cost to convert from VB6 to Real Studio, we (BKeeney Software) have a VB6 Analyzer Tool for you to download (written in RB of course) that analyzes your project and gives us some metrics on lines of code, controls used, numbers of classes, etc, that help us give you an estimate.  More information can be found at

VB6 To REALbasic: VB Migration Assistant

Converting from Visual Basic 6 to REALbasic is no trivial matter.  When Real Software offered the Visual Basic Project Converter (VBPC) I lobbied long and hard to get it removed from their website because it gave a really bad first impression of REALbasic.  In many respects, it made the conversion process worse because it tried to, and failed miserably, to convert code that couldn’t be converted.  To their credit, Real Software pulled the free application and went back to the drawing board.  Now they’ve come back with a new product called the Visual Basic Migration Assistant (VBMA).  Did they get it right this time?

VB FormTo test VBMA out, I found a simple calculator control on Planet Source Code ( to convert to REALbasic.  The project URL is and you can download it if you want and follow along.  I’m doing this using the Mac OS X version so your results may be slightly different.

When first opening VBMA you are presented with a simple window.  Its minimal design is somewhat confusing but given that you’ve just started the VB Migration Assistant you should probably know that you’re here to try to migrate your VB6 project to REALbasic.  Clicking on the Import Project button allows you to select your visual basic project.  You may also attempt to convert individual items by using the Add Item button.  You may also choose which VB project encoding to use from a simple popup menu in the lower right portion of the window.  Clicking the Next button takes you to the control mapping panel.

The control mapping panel is pretty important if your project uses non-standard controls.  This is your chance to choose the REALbasic control to use.  For example, if your VB6 project uses a TreeView control you could choose to use the RB listbox or, if you use the Einhugur TreeView control you could easily create your own control map to convert use it by creating and modifying the control map.

One oversight in VBMA that needs to be rectified in the next release is that the ControlMap file has no file extension nor does it have a type or creator code so in both Macintosh OS X and in Windows the OS doesn’t know what type of file it is.  In reality, it’s a simple text file and may be opened and edited with any text editor.

There are two checkboxes on this panel that are important.  The first is a checkbox to change all control fonts to System.  The second checkbox is change the font size to zero.  I really recommend that you check both optionVBMA Screen2s.  Click the migrate button, name and choose a location for the project and VBMA will create a REALbasic project and open REALbasic for you.

Looking at the RB project it created a new App object, a menubar and a window named frmCalcu.  Opening the window shows us that it did a pretty reasonable job of converting from the VB6 form to an RB window.  In retrospect I might have changed the mapping from the buttons to bevel buttons but that’s debatable and you can play with this later.

Opening the code editor you’ll find some interesting results.  VBMA doesn’t try to convert any code for you at all.  What it does is copy all of the VB6 code into a Notes named after the VB6 object.  It also attempts to copy code into the proper RB control events.  For example, in VB6 we have the event code cmdDot_Click() and VBMA correctly places the code in the cmdDot.Action event.  In this simple project VBMA got everything correct.  Simply running the project at this point creates no errors and our window opens but none of the controls do anything.

Some would argue that Real Software cheated with just copying the code over.  I disagree because even though Visual Basic and REALbasic have ‘basic’ in the name they are not the same language.  Unless you’re going to write a VB6 compiler I don’t think there’s any easy way to convert the language with 100% accuracy so why try?  I think this balances the need to convert the form layouts quickly and getting the VB6 code into the RB project.

Converting the forms, honestly, is the easy part.  The hard part will be converting the code by hand.  We’ll start in the number buttons named Numero.  VBMA conveniently adds some comments at the top of the function that shows what the parameters are and if there is a return variable.  In this case, the Numero.Action passes in the control array index number and doesn’t return anything.  What this method does is read the number and then puts the new number into the display editfield.

If we uncomment all of the code in the project and try to run the project we get a Type Mismatch error on the InStr line because RB expects a boolean value in the IF statement and InStr returns a number.  Simply changing the line to If InStr(txtDisplay.Text, “.”) > 0 Then let’s the project compile and work allowing you to click on any of the numbers.

Then we continue on to the other buttons testing each one.  The cmdDot button is similar to the Numero.  Once we get to the cmdCancel we get to an On Error Resume Next error in VB6.  There is no exact equivalent in RB so this is where some human intervention is necessary.  In this case I’m not sure why they added this error handling in.  It’s entirely possible that the Mid function in VB6 creates an error if the 3rd parameter is negative.  Regardless, it’s a good example of trying to figure out what the original VB6 code was trying to do and then having to figure out the RB equivalent.

Other issues that commonly occur when converting to REALbasic is that VB6 is a very loosely typed language.  This means that you can assign a number to text field and it will happily convert it to a string for you and this is bad.  If you try to concatenate the string “12” + “12” in VB6 you’ll get “24” as the result.  Not surprisingly there is a work around in VB6 with the & symbol.  Using “12” & “12” results in the string “1212”.  So when you get to the cmdEqual.ActioFirst Look at RB Windown event you’ll see this code txtDisplay.Text = answer which is valid in VB6 but not in RB because answer is a double and the RB compiler rightly complains about it.  In RB you would change this to txtDisplay.text = cstr(answer).  Alternatively you might want to use the Format function to make the display text better.

A lot of code will convert cleanly.  However, code that will almost always require additional attention are recordsets.  REALbasic’s recordset doesn’t have an AddNew function like Visual Basic.  Nearly anything to do with file I/O is going to be a hassle because VB’s file commands are pretty archaic in comparison to REALbasic’s folderitem class.

The other item of note in our very simple project is that the cmdEqual_KeyPress method should really be the window KeyDown event.  Moving it there and handling the keypress let’s the app work via the keyboard.  Instead of calling the VB click event function we have to convert to the pushbutton push method instead.

This is an incredibly simple project and probably took me more time to ‘convert’ it then starting from scratch, however it gives us some ideas on how the process works.  So let’s take a look at a more complex project.  I took an old VB6 project of my own and ran it through VBMA to see what it would do.

This project is an old MDI-type application, uses Crystal Reports and a few miscellaneous libraries.  The first thing to note is that the Crystal Reports Viewer, zip controls, and the MDI form will get converted to a REALbasic canvas object.  It’s not ideal but I could certainly modify the Control Map to do a little better job.

Another few oddities in the mapping is that the VB6 Common Dialog and toolbar get converted to canvas objects as well.  The REALbasic options don’t include toolbars so I’m assuming that it’s not possible to convert a VB6 toolbar to a REALbasic toolbar.  The common dialog is a bit tricky because there is not RB equivalent so I’m not sure if it’s better to convert it or to come up with a helper object to make it easier to deal with later.  Again, with the Control Map you could do this on your own if you convert projects with any regularity.

In my large project VBMA had issues with converting deeply nested controls (ie. a control inside a groupbox inside another groupbox on a tab).  If your VB6 project is doing a lot of this then you might have some issues (the controls are all there, just layered oddly).  Other than that it does a decent job of converting a project.

Things that I’d like to see added in future versions:  The ability to change colors to a default color and the ability to set a default height for controls.

VBMA is not perfect but I like it.  It doesn’t try to do everything for me and in the long run  converting your BASIC code manually is the easy part since the really time consuming part of migrating to REALbasic is converting the forms to RB windows.  VBMA lets you do this quickly and easily.

If VBMA is a bit too ‘lite’ for you, you can always try VB Convert! from AYB Computers.  It has many more options for form and code conversion.  It has some quirks in code conversion but it might be a good alternative for you.  VB Convert! Pro costs $65.

Abandoning the Fantasy of VB Migration Wizardry

That’s a great question!  I’ve always said that REALbasic is a good choice (for the most part) for people wanting to migrate from Visual Basic 6.  The article points out that for most applications, they should probably stay in VB6 unless they’re highly visible in the organization or if they need something specific to .NET.

And therein lies the rub of migrating from one development environment to another.  There’s pain involved.  In fact, a lot of pain.  Regardless of how good an automated conversion process is, it will always miss something and that something might be very subtle.  So subtle in fact that it might take months to find it, or even worse, after it’s been released (because after all, who has time to properly test anything these days?).

Hiring a developer or even a service can be very expensive.  One VB6 to .NET conversion service charges $1 per line of code.  A VB6 project I worked on for years had 950,000 lines of code.  There was no way that they could afford to get it converted to .NET because they didn’t have $950,000 sitting around.  Doing it themselves would have cost them a minimum of a year with a team of experienced .NET developers.  They thought they wanted to go to .NET but yet they could never give any good reasons why they wanted to go .NET other than it is the new ‘thing’ to code in.

Let’s face it, VB6 is still a capable language and while language purists might dismiss it, I’ve done and seen a lot of awesome code in it.  Sure, to make a modern looking application you have to go through some hoops but it’s not that hard.

The situation with converting to REALbasic is similar to that of VB6.  Unless you have a need for RB’s strengths, such as wanting to support Macintosh and Linux users, you’re probably better off staying in VB6.  I’ve had quite a few people amazed at how much it costs to convert from VB6 to RB.  For some reason they think it should be ‘easy’ because they both have the word BASIC in their name.  Nothing could be farther from the truth:  RB and VB are completely different languages and frameworks and only a skilled developer can convert between the two.

Converting from VB6 to .NET is always an option.  If you do that you’re stuck with Microsoft for another decade and you’re still not supporting Mac and Linux users.  REALbasic should be considered an option if you want to migrate away from VB6.

What are your thoughts?

The State of Visual Basic 6 to REALbasic Conversion

Visual Basic 6 is arguably the most common development language on the planet.  It’s low barrier to entry and easy-of-use and its extensibility make it ideal for many non-programmers to make a ‘working’ application that does exactly what they want.

VB6 is no longer supported by Microsoft.  This is forcing many developers into the .NET environment which is not as easy to use and many would argue that the language is no longer ‘basic’.  So what are companies that have dozens of VB6 applications to do?

Let’s also add to the mix that Apple has doubled their market share with very slick computers.  Linux has very vocal and loyal supporters.  All this means that companies that were once Microsoft-only now need to convert their VB6 code to something else.  Whether that something else is .NET, Java or REALbasic is somewhat irrelevant because every choice is going to involve pain (money, training, time, etc).

Converting from VB6 to REALbasic should be a no-brainer, right?  Wrong.  While they both have basic in the name, they really are completely separate languages, each with their own set of peculiarities.  Yes, there are many similarities between the languages but that doesn’t mean it’s easy.

REAL Software has had the Visual Basic Project Converter (VBPC) for a while and was last updated in early 2005.  It’s free for download.  I would recommend that you don’t even bother – you’re better off converting by hand.  Hey, you get what you pay for, right?

I find it inexcusable that REAL Software has taken over 2 years to release an update to software that might very well be the first thing that VB6 developers see when evaluating REALbasic.  Here’s a very brief list of what it doesn’t do:
•    Windows and controls are not converted to the proper dimensions
•    Enums not converted
•    Structs not converted
•    The converter mangles code with no errors

There is one commercial product to VBPC and that’s VB Convert! by AYB Computers.  Its price tag is a very reasonable $50.  Even if it only saves a little time it’s worth the money.

VB Convert! does a good job of converting VB6 forms to RB windows as long as you are using the standard Visual Basic controls.  If you’re using 3rd party controls you’ll at least get a canvas subclass in the proper position.

The code conversion is better than VBPC but keep in mind that there are just some things that won’t convert very well.  One such item is file I/O.  VB6 is a product of the early 90’s and is not OO in most areas.  REALbasic file I/O is pure OO.  Only a programmer can objectively convert from VB6 to RB at that point.

VB Convert! will convert enums and structs properly.  They also have a variety of options that the VBPC doesn’t have like forcing pushbuttons and editfields to a certain minimum size and converting a ADODB recordset AddNew method to using the REALbasic DatabaseRecord class.

You might think that I’m being easy on VB Convert!.  We, as a company, thought long and hard about creating a VB6 converter.  At first blush everything seems easy but then you get into the exceptions, and VB6 oddities, and all the 3rd party ActiveX controls and you start to realize that it’s a HUGE problem.  For a version 1.0 product AYB has blown away VBPC in terms of usefulness.

In the long run, no ‘converter’ will do all the work for you.  If you think you’re going to select a VB project file, run the conversion process and then hit the RUN button in REALbasic you are sadly mistaken.  The conversion process is just that – a process that takes a programmer familiar with both VB6 and RB to do the conversion.  In many cases it will be a line-by-line conversion even with tools to help.

Think about it this way:  Some companies that convert VB6 to .NET are charging $1 per line of code.  What are you paying for REAL’s VBPC?  Exactly.  At least with VB Convert! you’re funding a developer that actually cares and is willing to work with you.

In my opinion, RS should remove their converter application until (or if) they get it into a decent working state.  Until then, give VB Convert! a shot knowing that you will spend some serious time converting a lot of things by hand.  VB Convert! is a tool that can help save some time while VBPC is useless in its current state.