I looked in the windows directory and saw some DOS files. This is proof Windows runs on DOS and has nothing to do with it being part of their compatibility layer.

But its okay for Linux to run on paradigms that date back to the late 60s.

on windows x64 there's no DOS files anymore... at all.

Who on earth claims this?

DOS is emulated in Windows isn't it? o.O

Besides Powershell and BASH are the way to go...

DOS isn't emulated. It's a compatibility layer. When Windows notices a DOS file is starting, it launches a DOS handler for that applications and all DOS applications that follow.

Pros: Fast and efficient
Cons: One DOS app crashes, all DOS apps crash

You can make them run in their own memory space, though.

I know right? Windows 7 can do something I didn't think a mass-distributed OS could do: recover from a complete graphics driver failure.
I playing some CS:S, after about 40 mins the game window stops rendering new stuff, looking like a pause. About 3 seconds later, the screen flashes, and then the game resumes as normal. Intrigued, I Alt-TAB and there is this little message: "Graphics driver has stopped responding and has recovered". Let's see the same thing from YogiandbuBuntu(TM).

I have no idea if Linux can do that, but I do know I've never crashed this machine and I crashed 7 very easily, so... whatever man it's about results.

How the hell did you manage to crash 7? Yank the RAM out while the computer was still on? Maybe overheat the computer by wrapping a blanket around it?

In Linux, kernel panics are common because of the monolithic architecture. All those drivers inside the kernel mean that if one is written badly (they frequently slip through, despite the technical review), then it crashes and takes the kernel with it. Meanwhile, with a micro-kernel like OSX or Windows, where the drivers are separate, only the driver crashes, not the entire kernel, and can subsequently be recovered.

Worse still, desktop environments like X, Gnome, KDE and Compiz can crash and take your applications with it. What kind of Windows 95-era crap is that? See, that may not be "linux" crashing, but it still just ruined my work, so its a CRASH!

See, you can say "Linux never crashed on me" because you are either:

a) not doing anything with it, or
b) changing the definition of what a "crash" is.

Oh crashing Windows 7 is easy. Open the task manager and kill csrss.exe
But beside that I couldn't crash it either so far.
But heh, when you tell Linux users their OS got a kernel that was even deprecated when it came out, they'll tell you: You know Linux is much more secure as you can compile in all drivers statically and remove loadable kernel module support, so you're basically IMMUNE against rootkits!
If you ask them then why X still needs to run as superuser if it's so MEGA SECURE since it still lacks KMS ( Windows 3.1 had that one, lol ), they'll answer you - as they've got no idea what you're talking about, because Linux does *apparently* ( SHOCK! ) not teach you CS - that you're actually trolling and know that Linux is better, or, alternatively, will tell you to GoBackToWindows(TM), since you're just too mentally limited to see the greater magic in Linux.

2010: "I recently argued with a friend that Win XP/Vista/7 is still, in a manner of speaking, built on top of DOS, I know its not the old DOS setup but as I understand it, DOS is still incorporated in the bootloader and there is still an underlying 'shell' also called cmd.exe or command.com"

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=211813

"In a manner of speaking?"

These fools just don't listen to themselves talk, do they? Which is odd, because I can't think of any other reason for them to bother opening their mouth.