Windows gets new logo
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2012 22:42 UTC
Windows Microsoft has officially unveiled the new Windows logo, and unlike the several previous Windows logos it's no longer a flag, but actually a window. Which is weird, since Metro doesn't have windows. Love this bit: "It does not try to emulate faux-industrial design characteristics such as materiality (glass, wood, plastic, etc.)." A well-deserved jab at Apple's inexplicable obsession with skeuomorphic My First Operating System-esque interfaces.
E-mail Print r 0   63 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jrs
Thread beginning with comment 507668
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Is this a joke?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 18th Feb 2012 00:22 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

From the article:

In some ways you can trace the evolution of the Windows logo in parallel with the advancements of the technology used to create logos. From the simple two color version in Windows 1.0 to the intricate and detailed renderings in Windows Vista and Windows 7, each change makes sense in the context in which it was created. As computing capabilities increased, so did the use of that horse power to render more colors, better fonts, and more detailed and life-like 3D visual effects like depth, shadows, and materiality. We have evolved from a world of rudimentary low resolution graphics to today’s rich high-resolution systems. And what started as a simple “window” to compliment the product name became a flying or waving flag.

Am I the only one who sees the irony and backwards thinking in this? With only two primary colors--blue and white--and no real curves to think of, this logo is probably *the* most bland, simplistic logo in Windows history. And yet, here it is, in 2012. The successor to some much more colorful and complex logos (ie. with curves) of the past.

This thing is, literally, just one light-blue rectangle, separated in the center both horizontally and vertically with two straight white lines, and at a very slight angle so it looks less square/rectangle-like. That's it. No gradients, no more than two basic colors, no curves, nothing. If this is all our technology for developing images can do right here in 2012... then it looks like we're going backwards. But then, maybe that's the point: with Metro, Windows *is* making clear strides backwards in terms of usability, at least for those users of desktop, non-portable, non-touchscreen devices. So I guess in that way it does make sense; a hint at what's to come with our real-life experience of the future versions of Windows?

Microsoft's marketing department seems to be so desperate for change, so hell-bent on doing everything for everyone no matter what class of computer they use, and so desperate to change things drastically so they can spout new bullshit aside from the usual "faster, more intuitive, more secure than ever before" that they'll even dumb down their logo. Wow.

Edited 2012-02-18 00:29 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Is this a joke?
by roar on Sat 18th Feb 2012 03:24 in reply to "Is this a joke?"
roar Member since:
2009-12-26


This thing is, literally, just one light-blue rectangle, separated in the center both horizontally and vertically with two straight white lines, and at a very slight angle so it looks less square/rectangle-like. That's it. No gradients, no more than two basic colors, no curves, nothing. If this is all our technology for developing images can do right here in 2012... then it looks like we're going backwards.

Are you being serious with this? Do you want more gradients, rounded corners, gloss, striped backgrounds, colors and curves? Personally I'm glad those days are over (in the web design world). But I can not wrap my head around your assumption that better computing/graphics technology must yield fancier logos, and that a logo's fanciness has actually something to do with its quality.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Is this a joke?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 18th Feb 2012 05:06 in reply to "RE: Is this a joke?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Are you being serious with this? Do you want more gradients, rounded corners, gloss, striped backgrounds, colors and curves? Personally I'm glad those days are over (in the web design world). But I can not wrap my head around your assumption that better computing/graphics technology must yield fancier logos, and that a logo's fanciness has actually something to do with its quality.

That's not necessarily what I meant, although it's pretty hard to explain and I *knew* people would respond taking what I meant, and understanding it the exact opposite. Hell, even if I read it and--assuming I didn't even know what I was talking about--I would probably think the same. It's just one of those balancing acts that you just can't get right; my point is, too much complexity *or*, in this case, too much simplicity are both bad.

Take four light sky-blue sheets of construction paper and lay them down sideways, side-by-side and in two columns on a white surface--a desktop, floor, whatever. There you have it... that's it... the Windows 8 "logo". Maybe tape the sheets to the surface and hold one side up for the "angle" effect. The classic Windows logo is not a whole lot more in-your-face and complex than that (not too many curves, colors, gradiants, etc.), but with it there's no mistaking the brand and it looks nice; it was a lot more effective.

I'm not saying add all the fancy shit you can--just that this logo is so damn bland, it's pathetic (and laughable). What they had worked; why ruin it? Ironically, even the first Windows logo pictured in the article, I'd argue, is better; it had rounded corners and the white lines were not just slapped right through the center (for the most part).

Edited 2012-02-18 05:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4