Talk:Timeline of computing 1990–1999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconComputing Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name change[edit]

Shouldn't this be "Timeline of HOME computing 1990-present"?

iMac should be added[edit]

Why isn't iMac debut not mentioned? The elimination of floppy drive and standardizing on USB are significant trend set for the rest of computing world.

This was added by someone.

Doom II shouldn't be included[edit]

I suggest we drop the Doom II release, since by contemporary standards it was a mere add-on (mission pack) and being pretty much identical to Doom in no way could reflect "rapidly increasing quality of games available for the PC". If there are any objections, feel free to argue here and/or reverse my change. Paranoid 21:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidelines for inclusion of new entries[edit]

Given that we will be continuously facing the need to update this timeline, I will suggest a few guidelines for inclusion of new entries (I expect it to be refined during the addition of 2002-2004 history).

Things to be included (the structure can supposedly be reused in the future, while some items are already specific to the early 2000s period):

  • new families of processors
    • including the manufacturing process (0.13 micron, 90 nanometres, etc.)
    • including transistor count
  • new 3D-card families (since GPUs became as relevant as CPUs) — need to add major 3dfx, nVidia and ATi landmarks
    • Voodoo + QuakeGL as the first major accelerated game
    • nVidia first cards (new king)
    • GeForce FX (2003) and/or 6800/X800 (2004) for the transition to "cinematic computing"
    • give the transistor count as well
  • major games, especially those important from the technological and cultural viewpoints. Some suggestions:
    • add to Quake entry something about QuakeWorld - first major game really playable over INet
    • Quake 3 for being multiplayer-only (and may be Unreal Tournament)
    • some MMORPGs, like may be Everquest
    • Sims for their mainstream appeal
    • fourth-generation games (Half-Life 2, Doom 3, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Far Cry) for the techological leap
  • major PC technologies (buses, external interfaces, peripherals)
    • Bluetooth
    • DVD
    • LCD adoption (LCD outsell CRT, notebooks outsell desktops, etc.)
    • stereo support in nVidia 3D cards (for shutter-glasses)
  • emergence of handhelds (starting with Newton and PalmPilot) and then smartphones
    • other form factors like Tablet PC
  • wireless Internet (Wi-Fi, GPRS)
  • new operating systems (as it is, mostly OS X flavours - are they relevant? and Linux versions - Lindows probably, what else?)
  • new types of applications.
    • mp3 playback, DivX playback, video editing (to continue with the "MPC" theme)
  • what are the recent news on DNA computing (there were some), quantum computers, spintronics, photon computers, etc.?
  • news on software patents, may be? (in tune with the 20 June, 2000 item)
  • major supercomputer milestones
    • Earth Simulator
  • what else is important enough and relevant?

May be we should also already separate the 2000s from the 1990s. Paranoid 22:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This page contains a lot of text from [1] Possibly this is also true for the other timeline pages.

The origin isn't in the page history. Any ideas? Fredrik | talk 15:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I just categorized some content chronologically, but then noticed the language and style of writing are in many places pretty poor for encyclopedic work. Examples include this: "PC-DOS 6.3 Basically the same as version 5.0 this release by IBM included more bundled software, such as Stacker (the program that caused Microsoft so much embarrassment) and anti-virus software.", and grammar mistakes like "Intel Release the 75 MHz version of the Pentium Processor." with an uppercase 'R'. Not sure if this warrants a cleanup tag, but bringing it up at least. I may go through the article later on if it isn't fixed. -- Jugalator 13:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pentium Pro entry incorrect[edit]

In the timeline, the Pentium Pro is listed as being essentially the same as the original Pentium. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pentium Pro was the first implementation of the P6 architecture, which was repackaged in the Pentium II, rebranded as the Pentium III, tweaked as the Pentium M, tweaked some more as the Core and now crammed into the Core II. 13:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So the pentium at 75MHz was released AFTER the 100MHz one, QuakeGL was released BEFORE Quake and Windows 95 was never released...

This article shouldn't be visible to the public in this state.--euyyn 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sony releases the Wii[edit]

Is this right? Buttc0 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this page was vandalized, or made by someone with a, well, less than inteligent mind. I'm gonna ask a few admins to fix this abomination of a page, that shouldn't even be outdated. the information is just all wrong. Kingemocut (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the current article copied from the page linked in the external links section?[edit]


In the External links subsection, there is one external link present with the text The present article is a modified version of his timeline, used with permission.

The "permission" text has a link which was moved without a redirect to Wikipedia:History of computing/Permission. However, does anyone know if this still applies? The text stating this should probably be removed if not; we might also consider removing the link entirely per the external link guidelines (the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article), if that applies. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]