Not sure what you are talking about but if its NTFS encryption then I'm almost positive its available in NTFS under W2K as well. If you dont do NTFS encryption (or equivalent) then your files can be easily read by anyone who can boot the machine into another OS.
Bullshit. Why people spout crap like this is beyond me. I have nothing against loading up a machine with 2GB of ram, especially since its so cheap, but to make up numbers like this is just plain wrong.
It's probably the NTFS encryption (I'm definitely not a tech guy). Both OS support it, but I noticed that logging in W2K you cannot access the private folders of XP, while it's possible the other way around (with Admin accts and not doing any encryption on my part). I guess then XP does it by default, while W2K not. Or am I mistaken?
Not sure what you are doing but with no encryption, if I am the administrator and have access to your partition (or drive) then I can read any file, nothing can be hidden or kept from me by way of permissions since I am now the administrator and have completely control. Perhaps the private files are marked hidden or system and you do not have your system setup to show the hidden/system files in the GUI (Tools->Folder Options->View, in XP)
As an admin, he can reset your password. log on to your acct and read what he pleases. but at that point, you might know your password has been changed
There is no need to do that. If there are two partitions A and B and your OS & data is on A and I boot from B (where I am an admin) then I can read everything on A without modifying anything. That's what being an admin means, the file permissions set on A will have no effect on me. I agree that if I want to boot the A partition OS and login then I would need to reset the password but to just view the entire A partition I dont need to leave any tracks (and I dont need a B partition either just boot WinXP PE from a CDROM and have at it)
Win XP Pro has System Restore, Win 2K does not. System Restore rules! That alone makes it much better than Win 2K imo
As to the original question posted in the title in this thread, I can't think of a single reason to run W2K over XP unless you are so tight on system resources that XP will not run (processor not supported) or will not run well (in which case I doubt W2K will run well either).