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.
…I really wish they had done the perspective properly on the middle line. That’s driving me nuts, and I think I’m going to hate this logo forever because of it. The one-color version of the Vista/7 logo (like on new laptops’ Windows keys) was so much more agreeable.
It is probably too late to fix that. Now they have to support customers who rely on bad window perspective.
I’m not sure I understand this. I think you’re referring to the horizontal white line between the upper and lower window panes, and to the fact that it’s totally horizontal. But The perspective is straight on (i.e. the line is exactly at eye level), so isn’t that how it should be? Unless you’re talking about somethings else.
The line should become thinner at the left side.
it does slightly
It’s subtle, but the logo can be interpreted two ways (and I think that was the point from a design perspective)…
1. As a window with 4 panes with horizontal perspective.
Or
2. As a clear window (no panes) with horizontal perspective overlooking a metro-style screen in the background with no perspective (the plane of the 4 metro “boxes” in the background is completely flat… Like metro is)
That’s my interpretation anyway. And even if I’m wrong, a good logo makes people’s gears turn unconsciously when they look at it. By all the discussion about it I think it worked…
Edited 2012-02-18 05:07 UTC
Honestly, it strikes me as a darn *brick wall*… the out-of-place one that Willie Coyote would smash against in the middle of the road… :/
First of all, I’m not the ugly Bill. I mean, I *am* ugly, but not the same parent poster.
Second of all, I am never going to be able to look at that logo with out a mini Wile E. Coyote slamming into it.
Edited 2012-02-18 16:09 UTC
Maybe it’s better to look at it as a head-on window, but just a bit misshapen one, generally a bit “broken” or “wrong” (could it be that logo team wanted to sneak in some hints?
)
More curiously, this logo is essentially… anti-Finnish (flag); not sure what to make out of it, in light of Nokia alliance.
(alternatively, it’s some perverse tribute to Shetland; or maybe Calais)
Late, Never mind
Edited 2012-02-18 01:22 UTC
It’s pretty bland and weak. The emphasis isn’t there anymore.
It looks every bit as amateurish and hastily thrown together as the OS it represents.
oh god I got such a boner reading this
LOL, and they probably paid somebody 6 figures to create this logo.
It’s entirely possible the designer has a sense of humour to match a keen eye for design. If so I applaud their trolling skills
Not going to buy the T shirt of anything but it looks nice.
Clean
Talking about branding and logos Apple has dropped the “Mac” from it’s new OS X mountain Lion.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/16/apple-officially-drops-mac-name…
It looks strange and it is a missed opportunity:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/18/2807566/the-real-missed-opportuni…
Microsoft could probably put black and white monochorome printed lables on it’s products and it will still sell hundreds of millions.
No one buy windows for styling or the nice box it comes in or the beautiful logo that appear when it boot.
This is because Windows is a tool like piece of equipment lying in hardware store. You just need it.
I personally like it.
But I get what your’e saying too.
Edited 2012-02-19 01:47 UTC
Its just…hideous.
I would sue over the use of a part of their flag…
But it’s trademarked now.
Greece will have to pay Microsoft every time they want to use it…
More interesting, for me, is the blue text.
From a purely technical perspective, black text is always better from a usability perspective, especially with the recent corporate moves towards proper accessibility in their UI design.
Blue text here is a clear statement that the focus with Windows has shifted towards satisfying more modern, consumer trends.
Obviously that vibe is coming across in other ways (the metro launcher
). But I really think that the text change is a sign that the Windows message has fundamentally changed.
Leads me to believe the color will be tied to the theme of the OS in some way.
Don’t think you have any credibility as a company when you design logos like that. Throwing jabs here and there, they’re cute and all but you can’t be taken seriously.
From the article:
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
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
honestly it hurts to look at. the strange perspective of it, I mean.
and it hasn’t gotten any easier to look at since the logo first leaked days ago.
for comparison: this guy on the windows blog was like “yo try this” http://www.flickr.com/photos/36724189@N05/6892887411/in/photostream or http://www.flickr.com/photos/36724189@N05/6892887709/in/photostream
not saying I’m married to his design. but it lacks some of the KNIFING ME IN THE EYE of the new microsoft windows logo design.
anyway, its done, so on with the show. insert windows 8 feature complete beta into my snozz please.
The first one looks so much better than the original.
I can’t believe people are actually whining about the perspective of the lines in this new logo. I suppose there will always be those who aren’t happy unless they’re spouting off about Microsoft. What’s funny though is that if you want to cry about perspective, then you should realize both lines are technically incorrect. However, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with the logo. There is no such thing, their images may be anything they choose.
Is the logo simplistic? Yup. Are people reading way too much into it? Hell yup. I’m sure some of you will cringe when you hear this but the logo will do exactly what it needs to — become widely recognized (thanks in part to the smart choice of colors).
My personal opinion is I neither like nor dislike it. I’m not impressed. I’m not disappointed. Beyond that I’ll say it’s silly some of you are so emotionally moved and so strongly opinionated over something that shouldn’t have any relevance to you in the first place. *shrug*
I can’t stop seeing a flashing black square where the white lines meet. I think Microsoft meant for that to be an optical illusion like this:
http://www.vashtie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/black-dots-o…
I for one am glad they don’t feel the need to make it perfect aka unapproachable by critics. I’m sure Microsoft had ten times the amount of internal folks saying the same critical things said here, but they didn’t feel the need to capitulate.
This logo is designed to have a Metro theme. But, Metro is primarily for running full-screen applications, or perhaps one primary application with a second docked to the side. The notion of a window with four panes is not applicable to Metro.
Maybe it should just be a solid sheet of glass instead…
One does wonder if it may be time to abondon the “Windows” brand entirely. It doesn’t seem very relevant to their OS any longer.
If I had made this logo I wouldn’t be so quick to take jabs at other companies, especially not those that are actually excelling at style.
Yeah well, you managed to make it dull as hell. It sure does not give me an impression of motion and style, quite the opposite.
It’s too damn wide and if you make it narrower by removing the text you’d never know what it was.
If Apple still did the “I’m a Mac” ads, the PC might go wild and wear a Hawaiian shirt with this pattern.
I don’t understand what’s up with you all, this logo transmits a fantastic image of Windows 8 :
1/Ugly (Gratuitous and amateurish perspective, a blue that just doesn’t feel right on a white background)
2/Unusable (Window with no handle)
3/Unproductive (Most productive use of the previous logos was in printer tests)
4/Locked-down (That window is closed, there’s no easy way to open it, and you only get to see it from a side)
5/Misleading (Good luck getting 4 windows on your screen in that square layout with Win8)
Edited 2012-02-18 07:34 UTC
Oh, and did I mention the relevance of using the color scheme of a BSOD ? Not arguing that Windows shows that screen much anymore, but it does make a kind of point in PR material from Microsoft…
Edited 2012-02-18 08:04 UTC
All but no. 4 is really correct.
On ARM, with the locked bootloader and forbidden app sideloading, 4/ is quite accurate IMO
ARM..true definitely
They really have to get those desktop apps on ARM.
Or to let Metro Apps outside of the Windows Store
Edited 2012-02-19 20:06 UTC
To be honest – the window part of the logo looks good. The font itself is ok too, but the color … omg, that sucks.
I think it’s been designed so that the colour can be changed. Microsoft say it’s something the user will be able to do (that’s how I interpret “when you change your color, the logo changes to reflect you.”)
I suspect Microsoft will use different colours in its marketing.
Then again I like simplicity. Clean lines, edges, few colors. Good stuff.
Now the funny thing, which strikes me right now, is that Windows 8 with Metro gets back to the roots of Windows 1.0 – no overlapping Windows any more and a logo that is similar in simplicity.
Actually having some clever desktop with non-overlapping windows seems to be a good idea to me, as long as the available space is used. This reminds me of the old music trackers for DOS at around 1995 which also had some sort of non-overlapping windows, such that you always had the information available that you need for a specific task. I really liked that concept and would love to give it a try with a modern operating system.
To me it looks like they took the windows 1 logo, made it even simpler ( windows are not different sizes anymore ) and rotated it.
I guess it represents the metro interface exactly, since with it you have even less options than in windows 1.
I really hope MSFT pushes windows 8 to everyone everywhere and makes it really hard for users to go back to windows 7 !
Disclaimer: I’m really not a fan of MSFT and i haven’t used any of their products outside of a VM for a very long time.
These explanations for new logos – do they come from the design consultants (to help justify their costs) or from corporate HQ?
One of my favourites is BP’s:
“The colours of the ‘Helios’ – named after the Greek god of the sun ^aEUR“ suggest heat, light and nature. It is also a pattern of interlocking shapes: like BP, a single entity created by many different parts working as one.“
Ugly it just is and that’s undeniable. I wonder if the wrong perspective is meant to add something Escherian to the whole thing. It also looks like the flag of some Scandinavian country, which makes it quite unoriginal. A minimalistic logo for a product which is anything but uncomplicated and unencumbering.
I must say, I like it. On the one hand, I prefer the Windows 7-style logo, because it’s just… “more joyful” with its colours. The new logo, on the other hand, is simple, to the point, and fits better since it looks like an opened window (instead of like a waving flag).
Am I the only one here that thinks the Windows 1.0 logo was/is the best looking. Reminds me of a layout you would get with a tiling window manager (wasn’t Win 1.0 a tiler?)
It just didn’t have the ability to overlap windows and preferred fulscreen modes for running programs. Sounds familiar?
See screenshots of the v1 series of “Windows” (and the pre-release demos) here:
http://toastytech.com/guis/indexwindows.html
From that source: Rather than letting windows overlap or leaving part of the desktop empty, Microsoft Windows always gives all the space on the screen to the applications that are running.
After all, “tiling WM” sounds appropriate.
I agree. See below.
Someone posted this link in an article about the new Windows logo on another site:
http://stocklogos.com/topic/past-and-future-famous-logos
Good call, although judging by the other logos it was probably meant to be a joke, also the future Nokia logo seems to becoming reality aswell.
Compared to all the great logo designs in the World and that’s what they have come up with? Lame!
This new logo is yet another statement of the companys obvious gross incompetence in the realm of graphic design.
After so many years of accumulated experience it’s quite unnerving that improvements in design seem so unattainable for a company such as Microsoft. Seems like the blind are still leading the blind. Or in this case, the incompetent leading the incompetent.
Apple did this, too: their iconic rainbow apple, replaced with a flat vector shape. By making color not part of their logo, they make it easier to port recognizably… not to mention, they make it easier to render in a vector-based UI.
Doesn’t mean it’s a good move, but there’s an obvious reason for it.
The new logo reminds of small mint-flavored chocolate bricks I saw at a supermarket yesterday. I wanted to grab a few, but then my wife gave me that dreaded look, so I put them back in the shelf.
Me wants mint chocolatz..
It looks like a step back to the 1980s. I can’t believe for a second that’s the impression they wanted it to give, but that’s what it says to me.
“It does not try to emulate faux-industrial design characteristics such as materiality (glass, wood, plastic, etc.).”
Ain’t aero and transparency aimed at emulating… glass ?
Imagine if these business nuts got into Linux instead. Business is what they know well, not OS. Everybody would be happy.
Comparing the new logo for WIN-8 with its predecessors, I have to wonder how much money was spent (hundreds of thousands? … millions?) only to come up with something which hearkens back to Win-1, without being half as interesting.
As I understand it, Win-8 deprecates windowing anyway, why not just flat, matte blue panel, i.e. one pane sans sub-panels? None of my business anyway, I have no intention of getting a Win-8 only box. Enjoy, MS-fans!
And either way, the rough shape of window from Windows logo (~”cross” dividing it into 4 panels – hm, now I wonder if it had also some ~mythological inspiration in the Christendom) is far from universal nowadays …didn’t stop MS with the logo ;p
I keep thinking that Microsoft would be better off in moving away from the windows name, at least partially, with this next release.
for x86 market it as
Microsoft Metro (with Windows 8)
for ARM etc – simply
Microsoft Metro
It would be a clear break – good for consumers as they wouldn’t be expecting the windows experience of the past. Since Metro doesn’t have “windows” in a traditional sense then it seems crazy to give it that name.
Dropping the “with windows 8” part for the ARM version would make it pretty clear that customers shouldn’t expect to run legacy win32 applications.
The term windows doesn’t really reflect the nature of the OS any more – for clarity’s sake and for customer expectations, they’d be better off calling a spade a spade.
Meh.. The penguin logo wins