Hello all, I have a problem similar to the later posts in http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itprosecurity/thread/3cf199a1-5f4b-4045-8394-d64e44a741a2/, but that question was marked as answered and I'm not sure anyone's looking at it. I have found screensaver/locking settings in Win7 to be a bit glitchy, and I was hoping to get feedback on whether this was a known problem. My environment contains XP and Win7 workstations in a domain at 2003 functional level (there are a mix of 2003 and 2008 R2 DCs). I am trying to set a 15 minute screensaver-and-lock-workstation timeout, so I created a GPO and set "Enabled screen saver", "Password protect the screen saver", and "Screen saver timeout" (900 seconds). I didn't force a specific screen saver. The policy is linked to the user OU and filtered to the correct test users, and the appropriate screensaver settings show up as disabled on the clients once the policy is applied, but the Win7 computers seem to remember the settings they had before. For instance, I set my screensaver to apply after 1 minute, then I added myself to the policy and ran gpupdate /force. I saw the value in the "Wait X minutes" box in the screen saver dialog was now 15 (and disabled, so I couldn't change it in the UI), but my machine still locks after one minute. I think the policy works as expected on XP, but I haven't been able to verify that yet. Also, I'm not convinced it's a GPO problem. During a test when I was not affected by the GPO, I had my screensaver set to cut in at 15 minutes and had cleared "on resume display logon screen", then changed it to 1 minute and enabled the logon screen. The screensaver timing changed immediately, but it took several attempts at letting the computer go idle for it to lock after the screensaver. So something seems a little weird even outside of whatever the GPOs are doing. Can anyone shed light on why the Win7 screensaver settings aren't behaving themselves? Is it a problem with the GPO or with Win7? I would appreciate any input. And sorry if this is considered a double post; I just wanted to make sure someone saw it as a different problem, since the marked solution in the other thread is irrelevant for me.