Windows 95 had much more in common with Vista in that respect. A lot of people were trying to run it on hardware that it simply wasn't designed to run on (e.g. slow processor or too little RAM). A lot of software simply would not run because changes in the OS exposed poor programming practices used by third party developers. (Windows 95 exposed poor memory management and applications that attempted low level hardware access. Vista had issues with software that expected administrative access.) There were also parallels to Windows 8, with people who rejected the new user interface.

Windows 10 is different. While Windows 95 meant waiting for independent developers to clean up their act and for users to upgrade their computers, Windows 10 is a bit buggy. From my perspective, it seems a bit too buggy for a beta that is going gold in a month or so. Then again, I could be wrong. I have had no prior experience with Microsoft betas, so maybe they're better at cleaning up bugs than I think they are. Yet it is also worth noting that it won't be fixing some of the faults with Windows 8. Example: the UI, while significantly better, still has a split personality. (That is easily encountered while in the system settings.)

As for the benefits of upgrading, Windows 95 (and even Vista) had more significant advantages over Windows 10. Windows 10 is about fixing the release cycle, which is a concern to Microsoft rather than users, and fixing the UI, which is something that users could adapt to if they gave it a chance. Windows 95 was about software stability (memory management, preemptive multitasking) and Vista was about security (among other things).