SP2 and Sec Center nags

[PaulS]

I'm in charge of maintaining the machines in a SOHO with a handful of XP Pro
boxes. I recently put SP2 on all three, but because I have autoupdate
disabled ( I prefer to test patches on my machine before deploying), the
users are getting nag balloons from Security Center complaining that
autoupdates are off. I've enabled "Turn off access to all Windows Update
features" and "Remove links and access to Windows Update" in the Group Policy
settings, but no dice. All users have admin rights thanks to a requirement
from an ancient finance package. Thoughts? This is driving me crazy.

[R. McCarty]

Disable both Security Center and Automatic Updates via Services.Msc.

"PaulS" > wrote in message
...
> I'm in charge of maintaining the machines in a SOHO with a handful of XP
> Pro
> boxes. I recently put SP2 on all three, but because I have autoupdate
> disabled ( I prefer to test patches on my machine before deploying), the
> users are getting nag balloons from Security Center complaining that
> autoupdates are off. I've enabled "Turn off access to all Windows Update
> features" and "Remove links and access to Windows Update" in the Group
> Policy
> settings, but no dice. All users have admin rights thanks to a requirement
> from an ancient finance package. Thoughts? This is driving me crazy.

[PaulS]

That's a solution I can live with. Thanks!

"R. McCarty" wrote:

> Disable both Security Center and Automatic Updates via Services.Msc.
>
> "PaulS" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm in charge of maintaining the machines in a SOHO with a handful of XP
> > Pro
> > boxes. I recently put SP2 on all three, but because I have autoupdate
> > disabled ( I prefer to test patches on my machine before deploying), the
> > users are getting nag balloons from Security Center complaining that
> > autoupdates are off. I've enabled "Turn off access to all Windows Update
> > features" and "Remove links and access to Windows Update" in the Group
> > Policy
> > settings, but no dice. All users have admin rights thanks to a requirement
> > from an ancient finance package. Thoughts? This is driving me crazy.
>
>
>