There was nothing incoherent about it. There were two largely separate parts to it.
1. Ubuntu didn't exist until nearly a decade after Windows '95. If there was an issue relating to Windows '95, Ubuntu
Separately,
2. Gnome was trivially modifiable in ways that mean that addressing the kind of superficial issues you bring up did not in any way require the drastic changes brought by subsequent versions of Unity.
If MS patents had been an issue relating to the specific features you listed, stripping them out or replacing them without significant other changes would have been trivial. Indeed, MS own justification for the taskbar points out their perceived downsides of pre-existing iconification (and ironically massively overeggs it, by arguing the problem was double-clicks while ignoring that they could trivially solve that by allowing activation with the same single-click they did in the taskbar)
Your description is simply wildly implausible, especially entirely absent evidence (patent numbers would be a start) and contradicting statements from people much better placed to know.
I'll also note that I remember MS saber rattling about Linux, and it was not constrained to Gnome and KDE, or even directed at them, but at Linux in general. Meanwhile, the MS-SuSE/Novell patent agreement was not the agreement an MS that believed it had an actual case would make - it involved MS pre-paying Novel $440m for Linux support coupons, and Novell paying MS $40m for the patent pledge. Coming out $400m ahead when accused of patent infringement is pretty good. I'd like someone to make those kinds of patent accusations against me. Pretty please, anyone?
1. Ubuntu didn't exist until nearly a decade after Windows '95. If there was an issue relating to Windows '95, Ubuntu
Separately,
2. Gnome was trivially modifiable in ways that mean that addressing the kind of superficial issues you bring up did not in any way require the drastic changes brought by subsequent versions of Unity.
If MS patents had been an issue relating to the specific features you listed, stripping them out or replacing them without significant other changes would have been trivial. Indeed, MS own justification for the taskbar points out their perceived downsides of pre-existing iconification (and ironically massively overeggs it, by arguing the problem was double-clicks while ignoring that they could trivially solve that by allowing activation with the same single-click they did in the taskbar)
Your description is simply wildly implausible, especially entirely absent evidence (patent numbers would be a start) and contradicting statements from people much better placed to know.
I'll also note that I remember MS saber rattling about Linux, and it was not constrained to Gnome and KDE, or even directed at them, but at Linux in general. Meanwhile, the MS-SuSE/Novell patent agreement was not the agreement an MS that believed it had an actual case would make - it involved MS pre-paying Novel $440m for Linux support coupons, and Novell paying MS $40m for the patent pledge. Coming out $400m ahead when accused of patent infringement is pretty good. I'd like someone to make those kinds of patent accusations against me. Pretty please, anyone?