If this is a serious question and you wish to get a conceptual grasp of it, there is a lovely thin book called "Hydrogen" by Rigden (from Harvard). It walks you through the conceptual development.
Briefly, the need of better and better model of hydrogen atom arose because of the need to completely rationalize the experimental hydrogen spectrum. By the 1920s, experimental atomic spectroscopy was very advanced and people already started to very high resolution spectrum of atomic hydrogen. If Bohr's theory could explain every experimental aspect of hydrogen spectrum, there would be no need of another approach. For example, in hydrogen atom spectrum you could see closely two spaced lines which under low resolution appear as a single line (search doublet of hydrogen).
The oldest was the planetary model and Bohr's model is similar. Then Sommerfeld improved the model but still it was not adequate.
Contrary to the common opinion, orbital was not coined by Schrodinger. Robert Mulliken (another Nobel laureate) proposed this term.
An orbital is not a physical object or structure inside an atom, no matter how many useless general chemistry books or websites show them as balloons and other drawings. Even leading journals fell prey to this non-sense saying that orbitals have been observed or imaged, only to be embarased later. Orbital is a short form name of "one-electron orbital wave function". It is a mathematical construct which exists on paper and in the mind of a physicist.
Roughly you can imagine orbital as a pattern of electron density around a nucleus. But again, there is no actual "white cloud" of an electron surrounding the nucleus (if we were able to see it). Do not take the small world of particles in a literal sense. Much is known and much more is not known.