Kernel has XFS for some, ReiserFS for others, ext4 for the rest of us, and then some: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems. You would score a point if you cited ZFS as a FS with "some fairly advanced features", but NTFS just isn't that advanced among the rest.
Ya, nice chart we have all read 1000 times. It doesn't even fully detail the features of every FS, and mainly compares the features that are heavily favored in the OSS world, and sometimes worthless in the real world.
Look at the table headings: Posix file permissions, Last archive time stamp, Checksum/ECC. Some of these things are meaningless as NTFS is used, and some of them are features in NTFS, but because they are implemented differently or have a different name, they are not counted - for example: Block Journaling
NTFS is the kitchen sink of FS technology, is built on some old, but solid designs that work well with the object based nature of NT, so that handling generic file streaming is not something that it has to be used for since the NT OS understands more than pipes and files, and can actually use Object properties and data properties and the metadata in ways not even possible on a *nix.
I wonder if anyone here has a clue why Microsoft designed an Object Based kernel model for NT instead of using a generic pipe/file textual model like UNIX? It certainly wasn't for the performance back in 1990 when referencing object properties ate CPU cycles that were so precious back then. (Hint: This is the same reason NT continues to easily extend like modifying the entire video subsystem structure, driver model structure in NT4/Win2k, and it also gives it modern tricks of getting more performance and access to kernel and OS operations because they are not all generic I/O.)
When you don't have to pick between several FS to get the features you want, or kill your FS performance by strapping on augmentations to the FS to add the featutes and can still pull of NTFS performance and reliability numbers, then lets talk. So far, ZFS was the closest thing to getting there, and it even fell short in features.
(Journaling that doesn't destroy performance, encryption, copy on write, compression, etc. - you know, the simple stuff that WindowsNT does everyday and users actually assume all OSes offer.)
Oh, and why doesn't everyone bring out the NTFS 'fragments' boogey man argument. I love it considering the table access method NTFS uses is very efficient even at fragmented file access, and it brings up the point that because of 'copy on write', NTFS by nature will always fragment more, just like ZFS did, and just like any FS you cite would if they implemented a more advanced feature like this.