the biggest observable difference between windows versions before that was what it looked like
There were a lot more than UI changes in older Win. Networking, printing, plug & play, RAM handling, disk handling, multi-monitor, architecture, security, multi-tasking, kernel changes, folder & file names, backwards compatibility, etc—a lot of key advancements we take for granted today.
I skipped Vista, mainly due to widely reported issues with DRM, compatibility and slowness—I recall neither Tom's nor AnandTech were impressed. Besides, XP had solved its early messed-up situation by then with 3 extensive Service Packs, and there was little in Vista I wanted—the Sidebar yes, but Defender was in early days and not up to task.
Did anybody actually use Cortana?
Big hit with fans of Microsoft Bob and Clippy—plus of course anyone who types in Comic Sans
🙂
if I'm not mistaken 95c had usb support
Yep.
XP I just found that it built up windows to the next level and basically influenced all Windows releases after that
In 90s you had 2 distinct strands of Win, 9x and NT. XP was the marriage of both of these—essentially a consumer-level UI on top of NT 'engine'—but Win2000 was the first implementation of NT in the consumer space. I used 2000 for a few years, until the early XP mess was largely sorted by the first Service Pack—2000 was very good, and is unjustly forgotten and underrated.
Many people loved that, but not my thing. I must've tried 20 diff file managers before eventually finding the superb but expensive Directory Opus.