That article is so much bull shit and ignorance.
First the entire section about 3.x being hard to use has not supporting evidence. Anecdotally I can't recall anyone being especially confused by anything specific to the win 3.x ui. I can totally recall people who we not used to navigating nested menus having a terribly frustrating time using the Start menu. Explorer was a lot nicer than winfile I'll give you that but the rest of the claims run so counter to my experience I'd love to see some stats or a real usability study. I think timing had more to do with it personally '95 was about the time new Pentiums were getting affordable, the Internet had real things to do on that normal people wanted, so for so many Win95 was their first experience. Folks that were used to win3.x in the office spent much of their time using as a launch pad for DOS applications and terminal emulators so even for many of them '95 was "Windows". Its all a matter of what you got used to. Finally again speaking subjectively, the '95 ui was not all that good, certainly no where near as good as MacOS at the time or Norton Desktop on Windows 3.x.
The registry. Windows 3.x had a registry! It was not new in Windows 95.
Install wizards really? Plenty of Win 3.x software had easy to use very Wizard like setup programs calling that a new feature is laughable.
TCP/IP -- Again there were drivers for 3.x prior to the resale of Windows 95. You just had to install them I am not even taking about things like Trumpet etc, nope first party Windows NDIS drivers from Microsoft.
In short for the most part Windows 95, was nothing special. Plug and Play was the only real feature, otherwise it was just a fully loaded Win3.11. Which sometime not long after you could install the win32s on too.