I was surprised to learn today from an MSDN blog post that Visual Studio 2002 and Visual Studio 2003 will not be supported under Windows Vista.  This really comes as a suprise to me.  I’m not worried about Visual Studio 2002 (haven’t used it in years), but I do still use Visual Studio 2003 to modify older .NET 1.1 applications on a regularly-occasional basis (if I can say that).  Why don’t I just convert the applications to .NET 2.0 and use Visual Studio 2005?  In many cases, these are applications or sites that have been in production for years and my customers aren’t interested in paying for time to upgrade them.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the luxury of being able to spend my own non-billable time to upgrade the applications, even if it would make my life easier.  So what does this mean?  I guess this means that I need to keep at least one development machine that runs Windows XP for the next couple of years.  I’ve been running Windows Vista for the past month or so on my Tablet PC, but it looks like I might roll that back to a fresh installation of Windows XP.  The machine is just a little too sluggish to efficiently use it (it’s not cutting edge hardware by any means), and the Visual Studio compatibility issues are the icing on the cake.  As an alternative, I may keep a slower machine running Windows XP and develop on it via Remote Desktop.