What i meant by referring to c and assembler is that they are also not supported, could nto be, it's just language, not a product, like VB6, but compilers for them which people use are in most cases 10 years old, and they still do the job. So, VB6, or basic language in its pre-OO age is still working and is funcitonal (well, maybe win7 does not support it). So, it is no more outdated than any other. But all of this are "complete", it's in stable state, and nothing changes. Now, in .Net we have something predefined which can change at any time, while in old VB6 you did have commands, and that is about it, something which did never change, just new ware added up over years. While .Net brings a lot of classes with each release of new framework version. I use .Net, and sure it's 10 times easier to write code in it, for a "real" project would not go to VB6, since its all much easier to be made in VB.Net. Why did i mention VB6 in first place? Well, back then VB programmers did have it's language, IDE and good support. VB.Net? It's got nothing to do with VB, really nothing, it was MS evil plan to make C++ and VB programmers think same way, and so we do, anyone who can work in VB.Net can work in C#, and vice versa. So, what happend is not that VB evolved, he is gone. Why did i say it's nice to see someone still using VB6? Well, if anyone wants to use, go for it, vb6 is not bad, never was, and it's last real basic :rolleyes: And those that did not work in VB6 might think that it sucked, but, my opinion is that it was maybe to simple for those that used C++ or something similiar. You could do all what one could do in C++, or C, except that it depended on runtime (but so did VC++). Oh, that is a long post. What i want to say is, if someone wants to use VB6, don't tell him not to. I'm sure he does know that VB6 runtimes will not come with never versions of windows. Btw, embeded systems? os? This is already possible using .Net (not all classes suported yet) :omg: