It looks quite nice on the back of monitor screens, for example.
The extreme fake parallax in the new logo just ends up making it look unbalanced to me, like it's about to fall off my screen. I understand if they want to go all "Swiss" on the next logo...but if so, they shouldn't have had any parallax at all. When I see it, I don't think "Metro", and I don't think "Windows", I just think...apartment building.
I've never seen the original Windows 1.0 logo before (or maybe it's just been so long that I've forgotten), but I actually think that's far and away the best logo they've ever had.
I like it better than the new one. If they got rid of the rounded corners and added the new type, it would be a pretty good one.
It would also give Microsoft employees something I think they need - a bridge to their former greatness. Microsoft was a very interesting company back then and they may need to be reminded they can still be that company.
i agree. i've never seen that one before. in fact, they should take the font-style from the new logo and add the old window icon from 1.0, maybe adjust the blue in "windows" in the new logo to match 1.0 as well..
Something interesting to me is how the Windows 1 logo looks like the old ethernet 10base2 icon. A bit ahead of its time, in that sense --I don't think windows 1 was networkable.
Interestingly that logo accurately represents the way "Windows" worked in Windows 1.0. It didn't have overlapping windows. So the lines within the windows represent the dividers of the UI between the window areas. You could make one window bigger by moving a divider over, making all the windows on the other side of that divider smaller. There was no concept of windows being in front of or behind each other (like there was on the mac from the beginning. Microsoft obviously started on windows late compared to the mac, and was quite behind at the 1.0 release.)
2. It was important that the new logo carries our Metro principle of being “Authentically Digital”. By that, we mean it does not try to emulate faux-industrial design characteristics such as materiality (glass, wood, plastic, etc.)
This is in stark contrast to everything Apple has been doing lately with address books and calendar on iPad trying to look like cartoonish versions of real materials. I prefer "authentically digital"
Paula asked us a simple question, “your name is Windows. Why are you a flag?”
I have never really asked myself that question as a consumer. I have never felt "confused" that the logo is NOT a window. I have just generally liked Windows, the operating system, and have become fond of the brand after 15 years of use.
This assumes that your logo MUST be a literal representation of your name. I'm curious to know why. Without it, it just seems like an opinion of someone named Paula.
It's a stupid question. Logos aren't depictions. They're icons meant to represent something, not describe it. I never questioned the old logo. I actually liked it a lot more than the sad attempt at modernism they're announcing in this article.
It's disappointing that Microsoft doesn't seem to understand this essential design rule. They should read Paul Rand.
“Should a logo be self-explanatory? It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of that which it symbolizes."
Microsoft makes the fatal error here of listening to what customers say and not what they are saying.
They do this all the time and it's why their products tend to be train-wrecks, design by committee, functions by consensus, with little personality and zero fit and finish.
This logo is an abomination. It is the kind of thing a first year design student would come up with after a weekend bender and their assignment is due first thing Monday morning. It's a failing grade.
Microsoft has invested a lot in that "flag" and people know what it means because they've seen it glued to cash registers, ATMs, their notebook computers and desktops for more than ten years. It's iconic now.
To throw that out arbitrarily is reckless. Couldn't they hire a design firm with some credibility to adjust it, give it a bit more polish, take it in a slightly new direction, without trying to literally make it a window? It already says "Windows" so why repeat yourself?
I hope someone from the Metro team goes over to whomever did this and duct tapes them to a chair and forces them to hand-write an apology note in perfect Comic Sans.
Whether or not you think a logo should literally depict a name, I think her point was that the logo was originally intended to be a literal window: the Windows 1.0 logo was a picture of on-screen desktop windows, the 1989 version was a physical window, but in 3.1 they hopped the rails to a wavy thing that got steadily more flag-like.
This new version is a step back to the roots of the original design. It's clean, it's clear, and I like it.
Seems I read a design article once that claimed the /best/ thing you could have for a logo was an abstract shape that consumers identified with your brand, like the Nike swoop. It's fairly unique, identifiable, and unlikely to be confused with anything else. Seems the old windows logo was that, the new one is not.
I think the question arose from the fact that the old logo looked like it was trying to be both a window and a flag at the same time. The reason for looking like a window was pretty obvious, but the reason for looking like a flag wasn't.
I've always wondered why it was a flag. I've never liked Windows, and the logo always struck me as creepy, like they're trying to make you choose a side: "Come march under our banner!"
Ever since Windows 3.1, I viewed the faux 3D window decorations as an insulting waste of my processing time. The Windows logo was merely an extrapolation of MS's attitude that "Now that we have such powerful computers, we can merrily waste all that power with this increasingly bloated but supposedly impressive OS."
That attitude was not unique to them, at all. Apple has been equally guilty of it for longer than Microsoft. It's that attitude that (in part) led me to move to Linux a decade ago, where I could merrily work without suffering the overhead of a GUI.
This new Windows logo is, in my view, the sexiest thing I've ever seen come out of Microsoft. I stopped caring about Windows long ago, except to note that minwin sounded awesome (but never shipped?), Windows 8 Server could run headless (What an innovation!), and PowerShell actually does seem brilliantly innovative (although it's unfortunately integrated with all that .net crap).
Now if this logo accurately reflects their change in attitude, to a minimal OS that stays out of my way, then I've got to say I'm a fan. They're unlikely to win me over from Arch Linux, but for once Microsoft seems to be on the right track. At least with respect to that logo.
Edit: I'm amazed that this post is bouncing between 0 and 1 points. In a discussion of the new Windows logo, I described why I like it so much. If you disagree, feel free to comment. Down-votes should not be used to express disagreement.
Funny, that's exactly what Duarte said about Ice Cream Sandwich. I'll be honest, I kinda make the same scrunched up face when I see iOS screenshots as I do when I see a high gloss platicky KDE screenshot.
What makes the new Windows logo appear so weirdly revolting to me is the fact that it is minimalist, but not distinctive. Contrast this to the simplified Apple logo that one sees upon booting OS X-- minimalist, but entirely distinctive.
The new Windows logo is a weirdly parallaxed set of rectangles. Nothing specifically diacritical at all.
EDIT: I think this is why the monochrome Win7 logo that has been posted here is better. It is distinctly Windows, building on decades of brand identity, and a truly unique and iconic. It is almost as if the "flag" shape that Microsoft seems so eager to drop is perhaps their greatest asset.
They've missed the point: minimalism for the sake of minimalism isn't "better". Simple is simple. Beautiful is beautiful.
Could someone explain what motivates Microsoft to try and "completely reimagine" their OS every time they iterate? We're talking about an OS, not a video game. I get that they're trying to innovate, but it comes across as self-deprecating.
I love how Apple has maintained uniformity in their UI across the past few iterations of OSX. It's just one less thing to worry about relearning, allowing me to get my work done easier.
This is great. Not the logo itself, that's just... Something. But it's a very good idea for the clean break from previous Windows logos which were getting more and more complex. And now if you see any of those colorful logos, you will think "oh, that's old", so it's a subtle push to upgrade. Unlike Vista which was like, "oh that's the same old OS wrapped in a fake Apple-like shell."
I think the metro UI is genuinely interesting and (dare I say it) exciting. The logo redesign fits with our times - but it's incredibly safe .. verging on dull.
Large corporations have so much ubiquity .. we encounter them so many times throughout our day. Daily exposure ensures familiarity and this familiarity eventually leads to acceptance; in one sense the logo could be virtually anything and would still serve its purpose (e.g. Pepsi redesign).
The age of the logo is over in my opinion .. these days the prominance of a logo has been supplanted by a fuzzier, more Machiavellian concept - the ability for a brand to connect with its audience on a personal level. In that respect a logo is sometimes simply fodder to for the latter; ensuring the brand and company are spoken about socially (e.g. the gap redesign / 2012 olympics).
It pains me to imagine how much Pentagram were paid for this.
[+] [-] ender7|14 years ago|reply
It looks quite nice on the back of monitor screens, for example.
The extreme fake parallax in the new logo just ends up making it look unbalanced to me, like it's about to fall off my screen. I understand if they want to go all "Swiss" on the next logo...but if so, they shouldn't have had any parallax at all. When I see it, I don't think "Metro", and I don't think "Windows", I just think...apartment building.
Also, see commentary on Brand New: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/with_win...
[+] [-] m0nastic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|14 years ago|reply
It would also give Microsoft employees something I think they need - a bridge to their former greatness. Microsoft was a very interesting company back then and they may need to be reminded they can still be that company.
[+] [-] devindotcom|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|14 years ago|reply
Here's a nice SVG version that's a lot clearer than the one in the article:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Windows_1.0_lo...
[+] [-] fady|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RomP|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gillianseed|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErrantX|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joedev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|14 years ago|reply
This is in stark contrast to everything Apple has been doing lately with address books and calendar on iPad trying to look like cartoonish versions of real materials. I prefer "authentically digital"
[+] [-] r00fus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaidf|14 years ago|reply
I have never really asked myself that question as a consumer. I have never felt "confused" that the logo is NOT a window. I have just generally liked Windows, the operating system, and have become fond of the brand after 15 years of use.
This assumes that your logo MUST be a literal representation of your name. I'm curious to know why. Without it, it just seems like an opinion of someone named Paula.
[+] [-] artursapek|14 years ago|reply
It's disappointing that Microsoft doesn't seem to understand this essential design rule. They should read Paul Rand.
“Should a logo be self-explanatory? It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of that which it symbolizes."
[+] [-] astrodust|14 years ago|reply
They do this all the time and it's why their products tend to be train-wrecks, design by committee, functions by consensus, with little personality and zero fit and finish.
This logo is an abomination. It is the kind of thing a first year design student would come up with after a weekend bender and their assignment is due first thing Monday morning. It's a failing grade.
Microsoft has invested a lot in that "flag" and people know what it means because they've seen it glued to cash registers, ATMs, their notebook computers and desktops for more than ten years. It's iconic now.
To throw that out arbitrarily is reckless. Couldn't they hire a design firm with some credibility to adjust it, give it a bit more polish, take it in a slightly new direction, without trying to literally make it a window? It already says "Windows" so why repeat yourself?
I hope someone from the Metro team goes over to whomever did this and duct tapes them to a chair and forces them to hand-write an apology note in perfect Comic Sans.
[+] [-] seldo|14 years ago|reply
This new version is a step back to the roots of the original design. It's clean, it's clear, and I like it.
[+] [-] techdmn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahage16|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackalope|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] george_morgan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jagi4|14 years ago|reply
Just bring back the old WindowsPhone7 icon dammit!
[+] [-] dhughes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zirro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixothree|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|14 years ago|reply
Is "materiality" code for "skeumorphism"? Either way, it's a big middle finger to Apple.
[+] [-] literalusername|14 years ago|reply
That attitude was not unique to them, at all. Apple has been equally guilty of it for longer than Microsoft. It's that attitude that (in part) led me to move to Linux a decade ago, where I could merrily work without suffering the overhead of a GUI.
This new Windows logo is, in my view, the sexiest thing I've ever seen come out of Microsoft. I stopped caring about Windows long ago, except to note that minwin sounded awesome (but never shipped?), Windows 8 Server could run headless (What an innovation!), and PowerShell actually does seem brilliantly innovative (although it's unfortunately integrated with all that .net crap).
Now if this logo accurately reflects their change in attitude, to a minimal OS that stays out of my way, then I've got to say I'm a fan. They're unlikely to win me over from Arch Linux, but for once Microsoft seems to be on the right track. At least with respect to that logo.
Edit: I'm amazed that this post is bouncing between 0 and 1 points. In a discussion of the new Windows logo, I described why I like it so much. If you disagree, feel free to comment. Down-votes should not be used to express disagreement.
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
Good, this echo chamber can be annoying.
[+] [-] mc32|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyosity|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icarus_drowning|14 years ago|reply
The new Windows logo is a weirdly parallaxed set of rectangles. Nothing specifically diacritical at all.
EDIT: I think this is why the monochrome Win7 logo that has been posted here is better. It is distinctly Windows, building on decades of brand identity, and a truly unique and iconic. It is almost as if the "flag" shape that Microsoft seems so eager to drop is perhaps their greatest asset.
They've missed the point: minimalism for the sake of minimalism isn't "better". Simple is simple. Beautiful is beautiful.
[+] [-] Ryanmf|14 years ago|reply
I wonder how much they paid to listen to an expert ask that question when it was likely asked, and ignored, internally for years.
[+] [-] cbr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aggarwalachal|14 years ago|reply
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs15/f/2007/113/9/d/Old_Window_by...
[+] [-] Too|14 years ago|reply
...but we still haven't learned to not save single-colored pictures as jpeg. Aaa my eyes!
[+] [-] aggarwalachal|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cschmidt|14 years ago|reply
http://pentagram.com/en/new/2012/02/new-work-microsoft.php
including a nifty animated logo
[+] [-] martingordon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
The Metro look has lots of flat, colorful squares that are just crying out to become a Windows logo. See this Windows 8 screenshot, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_8_Developer_Previ...
[+] [-] demione|14 years ago|reply
I love how Apple has maintained uniformity in their UI across the past few iterations of OSX. It's just one less thing to worry about relearning, allowing me to get my work done easier.
[+] [-] alanfalcon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwhi|14 years ago|reply
Large corporations have so much ubiquity .. we encounter them so many times throughout our day. Daily exposure ensures familiarity and this familiarity eventually leads to acceptance; in one sense the logo could be virtually anything and would still serve its purpose (e.g. Pepsi redesign).
The age of the logo is over in my opinion .. these days the prominance of a logo has been supplanted by a fuzzier, more Machiavellian concept - the ability for a brand to connect with its audience on a personal level. In that respect a logo is sometimes simply fodder to for the latter; ensuring the brand and company are spoken about socially (e.g. the gap redesign / 2012 olympics).
It pains me to imagine how much Pentagram were paid for this.
[+] [-] jheimark|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandpoobah|14 years ago|reply