I must admit to being a little confused by these two, seemingly contradictory, statements:
...the argument is over computer security - he claims Windows XP security policies is not secure enough to prevent users (not Administrators) hacking the Administrator settings. I beleive it is, but this is where my expertise ends, hence my request.
The stupid thing is that we offered this place additional security but they refused on the grounds that they ddnt want to pay more on top of the price they were forking out.
On the one hand you seem to advocate XP security as sufficient; on the other you seem to be offering "enhanced security" for an additional fee...
If I have misunderstood then I apologise, and if you don't want to go into detail on here please PM me if you want an unbiased view [unbiased views are "free to good homes"
]
