Windows 95 was developed over several years with a lot of research and user studies. The primary objective of all this work was so that a person without prior exposure to computers could figure out how to use it. The software was designed to help the user accomplish the tasks they have set out to do before sitting down at the computer.
Today, both the audience and the objectives have changed. The overwhelming majority of the audience is now computer-literate and can be counted on to figure out how to use the basic features regardless of how poorly designed or inefficient they may be. And the priorities for many interfaces have changed, with the user's tasks relegated to a side quest.
Another factor is that Windows 95 was developed for "install it and leave it" operation, with the next upgrade coming in a year or two. Giving more attention to detail was unavoidable because you could not patch a bug a week after release. And Microsoft was offering phone support for its products, so every UI flaw would increase support costs.
Also, one of the design requirements was to fully support only-keyboard operation as a first-class access method, and a lot of QA effort went into ensuring this was true. This parallel access method resulted in a UI which was much more thoroughly evaluated for its efficiency.
Finally, I think a higher portion of people in the UI field were there for personal and passion reasons, and would have been embarrassed to have anything to do with the type of blundering buffoon of an interface that is common in today's computing.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/07/31/hard-assed-bug-fix...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932340
Today, both the audience and the objectives have changed. The overwhelming majority of the audience is now computer-literate and can be counted on to figure out how to use the basic features regardless of how poorly designed or inefficient they may be. And the priorities for many interfaces have changed, with the user's tasks relegated to a side quest.
Another factor is that Windows 95 was developed for "install it and leave it" operation, with the next upgrade coming in a year or two. Giving more attention to detail was unavoidable because you could not patch a bug a week after release. And Microsoft was offering phone support for its products, so every UI flaw would increase support costs.
Also, one of the design requirements was to fully support only-keyboard operation as a first-class access method, and a lot of QA effort went into ensuring this was true. This parallel access method resulted in a UI which was much more thoroughly evaluated for its efficiency.
Finally, I think a higher portion of people in the UI field were there for personal and passion reasons, and would have been embarrassed to have anything to do with the type of blundering buffoon of an interface that is common in today's computing.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/07/31/hard-assed-bug-fix...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932340