s1_yx_Eg9v4

It says early 1990s, but it's probably 1996 or 1997 given that CNET and Yahoo existed and they were using Windows 95 on the computer.

I've seen that video a few times and I agree that it IS cringeworthy because not only did Yahoo and Windows '95 not exist in the early 90s, the fashion shown wasn't even popular either.

I've seen that video a few times and I agree that it IS cringeworthy because not only did Yahoo and Windows '95 not exist in the early 90s, the fashion shown wasn't even popular either.


Yeah, this video isn't really a window into the 90s. It's an example of how cheesy something can get when people try to do an information video about something they're out of touch with. Based on the portrayal of the family, the producers or whoever came up with this hadn't kept up with the times since the 80s.

However, this video is funny in a cringeworthy way.

Yeah, this video isn't really a window into the 90s. It's an example of how cheesy something can get when people try to do an information video about something they're out of touch with. Based on the portrayal of the family, the producers or whoever came up with this hadn't kept up with the times since the 80s.

However, this video is funny in a cringeworthy way.


This is very similar to a lot of low-budget informational VHS cassettes in the '90s that would usually come with expensive electronics.  It is cheesy and funny at the same time.

s1_yx_Eg9v4

It says early 1990s, but it's probably 1996 or 1997 given that CNET and Yahoo existed and they were using Windows 95 on the computer.


So why were they using Windows 95? ???

I can't see the video

Nobody used the Internet in the early 90s, except for hardcore computer geeks. So I doubt the video existed by then. At least if they have a Windows 95 PC, then the video would've existed since August of 1995.

I remember mach!ne_he@d linked this video once. It's still hilarious ;D

This video is definitely not from the early 1990s.

The video is from 1997. Most of the screenshots for the web pages were taken in January 1997.

This video is definitely not from the early 1990s.

The video is from 1997. Most of the screenshots for the web pages were taken in January 1997.


I thought 1997 seemed about right.  It was towards the end of the Windows 95 era, given that Yahoo and CNET were around ruing that time.  1997 fits the bill.

The Internet revolution was definitely something specific to the second half of the '90s.  Most people didn't start getting online until the Windows 95 era.  Before that, it was mostly something for enthusiasts and businesses.  Prior to AOL, it wasn't super easy for beginners to set up a dial-up connection.  I still remember my dad spending hours trying configure his modem to get online back in 1996.

I thought 1997 seemed about right.  It was towards the end of the Windows 95 era, given that Yahoo and CNET were around ruing that time.  1997 fits the bill.

The Internet revolution was definitely something specific to the second half of the '90s.  Most people didn't start getting online until the Windows 95 era.  Before that, it was mostly something for enthusiasts and businesses.  Prior to AOL, it wasn't super easy for beginners to set up a dial-up connection.  I still remember my dad spending hours trying configure his modem to get online back in 1996.

Yeah, you're correct.

People always get the 80's and 90's wrong. ::)

This reminds me heavily of this article, which I actually came across only a few days ago, by googling "2000s bands." They claim these groups to be from the early 2000s, yet every single one of them was commercially relevant primarily during the mid-2000s or late 2000s instead. Yes, apparently even Paramore is an early 2000s band.

This reminds me heavily of this article, which I actually came across only a few days ago, by googling "2000s bands." They claim these groups to be from the early 2000s, yet every single one of them was commercially relevant primarily during the mid-2000s or late 2000s instead. Yes, apparently even Paramore is an early 2000s band.

That's ridiculous....I hate when peoole do that. It reminds me of those BuzzFeed articles and listicles where they do the same thing.

This list sucks! Hawthrone Heights, Fall Out Boy and Paramore are early 00's bands!?!? 8-P 8-P 8-P

This reminds me heavily of this article, which I actually came across only a few days ago, by googling "2000s bands." They claim these groups to be from the early 2000s, yet every single one of them was commercially relevant primarily during the mid-2000s or late 2000s instead. Yes, apparently even Paramore is an early 2000s band.


That's ridiculous....I hate when peoole do that. It reminds me of those BuzzFeed articles and listicles where they do the same thing.

This list sucks! Hawthrone Heights, Fall Out Boy and Paramore are early 00's bands!?!? 8-P 8-P 8-P

To be fair, I think that when some people refer to the "early 2000s", they mean the entire 2000s decade. Similar to 1900-1909 being referred to as the "early 1900s" in history textbooks.

To be fair, I think that when some people refer to the "early 2000s", they mean the entire 2000s decade. Similar to 1900-1909 being referred to as the "early 1900s" in history textbooks.


Well, the difference is that the 1900s heavily blend in with the 1910s and are usually dubbed the Edwardian Era, anyway. They're also so long ago that they have little bearing on current trends and nostalgia. The 2000s are pretty distinct from the 2010s, and after so many culturally distinguishable decades consecutively, it feels awkward and vague to be referring to 2000-2009 as not a decade, but rather early something. The terms mid-2000s and late 2000s, while ridiculously overshadowed by early 2000s, are nonetheless still popular to some degree today, and certainly can't casually refer to the 2040s to 2060s or 2070s to 2090s, which haven't happened yet, the way mid-1900s can qualify as the 1940s to 1960s or late 1900s can refer to the 1970s to 1990s. Okay, I'm probably getting more technical than necessary, but the point is, early 2000s is just a dumb moniker for the entire decade of 2000-2009 when it can more specifically refer to the Y2K-ish first few years of the decade only.

To be fair, I think that when some people refer to the "early 2000s", they mean the entire 2000s decade. Similar to 1900-1909 being referred to as the "early 1900s" in history textbooks.


Hmm, I can't say that I have ever heard anyone refer to the entire 2000s decade as being the "Early 2000s". It seems strange to think that some people would be referring to the decade in that context, especially with 2017 being the current year.

Hmm, I can't say that I have ever heard anyone refer to the entire 2000s decade as being the "Early 2000s". It seems strange to think that some people would be referring to the decade in that context, especially with 2017 being the current year.


I don't think anybody would consider the early 2000s as the entire 2000s decade, since it's culturally distinguishable compared to the 2010s. Especially since the term was made by late 90s kids who experienced the era as a child/teen, along with referring the 90s/Y2K aesthetics of it.

Hmm, I can't say that I have ever heard anyone refer to the entire 2000s decade as being the "Early 2000s". It seems strange to think that some people would be referring to the decade in that context, especially with 2017 being the current year.

I totally agree.

Well, the difference is that the 1900s heavily blend in with the 1910s and are usually dubbed the Edwardian Era, anyway.
You mean even from a neutral perspective, and not just the perspective of someone from today?

Well, the difference is that the 1900s heavily blend in with the 1910s and are usually dubbed the Edwardian Era, anyway. They're also so long ago that they have little bearing on current trends and nostalgia. The 2000s are pretty distinct from the 2010s, and after so many culturally distinguishable decades consecutively, it feels awkward and vague to be referring to 2000-2009 as not a decade, but rather early something. The terms mid-2000s and late 2000s, while ridiculously overshadowed by early 2000s, are nonetheless still popular to some degree today, and certainly can't casually refer to the 2040s to 2060s or 2070s to 2090s, which haven't happened yet, the way mid-1900s can qualify as the 1940s to 1960s or late 1900s can refer to the 1970s to 1990s. Okay, I'm probably getting more technical than necessary, but the point is, early 2000s is just a dumb moniker for the entire decade of 2000-2009 when it can more specifically refer to the Y2K-ish first few years of the decade only.


I disagree, the 1900s and 1910s might have been the same in terms of fashion but the 1910s are actually a lot different, because many people associate that decade with World War I, 1914-1918.

The '90s were basically the absolute height of the cheesy promotional videos. And the PSA videos were the worst of the bunch. How many of you guys that grew up during the '90s remember this little gem right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZK6PtI2qB0