{"id":550,"date":"2004-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-09T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2004\/08\/09\/ibm-tells-users-not-to-install-windows-xp-update\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:37:39","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:37:39","slug":"ibm-tells-users-not-to-install-windows-xp-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/?p=550","title":{"rendered":"IBM tells users not to install Windows XP update"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>While developers at Microsoft Corp. may be celebrating that they finished work on Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP, IT departments around the world now face the question on whether they should update their systems, or not.  IBM Corp., for one, is holding off on installing the security focused update for Windows XP.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a note headlined &#8220;To patch&#8221; or not to patch&#8221; posted Friday on its corporate intranet, IBM tells its employees not to download SP2 when it becomes available because of compatibility issues.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;While this patch may be good news for other Microsoft Windows XP owners, IBM is directing XP users not to install SP2,&#8221; the note states.<\/p>\n<p>Currently, some high profile, business-critical applications are also known to conflict with SP2,&#8221; IBM tells its employees in the note.  Microsoft has made something of a trade-off, focusing on security at the expense of compatibility.  Earlier this week the software vendor released an update for Microsoft CRM (Customer Relationship Management) 1.2 because SP2 will prevent the original application from running correctly.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the broad changes, analysts have compared the XP service pack to a Windows upgrade instead of a simple update.  Business users typically take much longer to install a new version of Windows than a service pack because of compatibility testing.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.itworldcanada.com\/Pages\/Docbase\/ViewArticle.aspx?id=idgml-e2660c5c-be61-46fe&#038;s=334096<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=550"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3037,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550\/revisions\/3037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}