Actually Linux's FS is newer still newer. The original dates for both Linux and
Windows file systems still favor Linux. Ext was an improvement on FAT, ext3 was
an improvement on NTFS. FAT32 was after NTFS, but was inferior in many ways.
When you consider updates to NTFS, Linux still wins as ReiserFS came out in 2001
and there are updates to both ext and Reiser in the works. Reiser4 and Ext4 are
available for use, but are still considered to be in development. I agree that
ZFS looks great. There is no reason why it can't work with Linux. It is just a
matter of time.

My point was (and still is) that this is an area where MS is weak and it is an
area where they have consistently de-valued the end user and his or her data.
Your points may have corrected my opinion that MS is static, but it does not
take away from the overall idea that they could have and should have done more.
Instead they use their revenue to push ahead with OSes that nobody wants and few
need. This of course all comes at the expense of the end users who have provided
that very revenue that enables them to go forward. Their investment is not for
current users, but in getting future users. Enough said.

Linux continues to provide user driven OSes and they keep pace with security and
file systems. In Linux, the disparate parts often drive improvements in other
parts which is good to see. Linux is unique in this. Lots of good work is also
being done in open Solaris and in BSD. We can't forget about them as they are
our cousins. They can enable us to push the envelop as well.