Microsoft explains bland new Windows logo Microsoft has detailed the thinking behind the latest change in its logo for Windows, saying the new design brings the software back to its roots. “If you look back to the origins of the logo you see that it really was meant to be a window,” blogged Sam Moreau, principal director of user experience for Windows. "Windows really …
Clare funny you should use the phrase commercial grade when talking about Windows.
From the free dictionary
Commercial Grade - of the kind or quality used in commerce; average or inferior;
So what you're saying is that to run a business system, you should perhaps settle for something inferior to other options? Does seem to work for a good part of the world, but it does seem a little under-ambitious!
Incidentally, one of my favourite factoids - The word 'bodge' as in 'to bodge' is actually derived from 'bodgers' who were considered master craftmen!
I'd love hearing the great web specialist you are explain how come "commercial grade" software fares so bad in areas like... web servers for example.
Surely technical reasons have nothing to do with it, all those high profile companies who make billions out of the internet are just cheap asses who can't be bothered to pay a few bucks for proper software, right?
Just like those Top-500 supercomputers owners: who would have thought that after investing so much in the hardware, only one out of 500 would have enough budget left to buy decent Microsoft software?
In these days of rampant amateurism, it's reassuring to see professionals like you stand up against the unwashed masses.
> If you are going to run business computers you need to use commercial grade software.
You most certainly do. And for that very reason nearly every job I've had for many years has been based around one Linux flavour or another.
I did work for one place that used Windows, but their hands were tied, as they'd allied themselves with a Windows only GIS server. Poor guys...
Why did they need to get a design company in, when they simply copied the logo from the 80s. 30million for no work. Good work if you can get it.
The logo is shit though. I mean, look at it. Dull as fuck, bland, boring. This is the message they are getting across for their new OS? Sigh.
Also, this version of Windows is so radically different in design to any previous version (all of which have looks pretty much the same - just shinier), they should have called it a new name. Left Windows in the past and moved on to new new pastures with Metro. I know it's all about branding and Windows is a mega-bucks brand name. But this is Microsoft, and a new brand name from them would've created massive waves.
Or totally out of inspiration? Perhaps they fired the only guy who was capable to come up with new logo design every time ?
I know I've become quite the critic when it comes to Windows 8 but here I simply see yet another fail. Ever since 3.1 the logo has always been RGB-Y, its very distinguishable and plain out recognizable. Even computer illiterates will pick the logo up as being Windows.
And now that everyone knows that this specific logo represents Windows you're going to change it into something which is so plain that its not even remotely fun to look at ?
otoh; maybe its a change for the best after all. Should Win8 indeed turn out into a disappointment (which I personally think is going to happen) then maybe some people won't associate it with Microsoft Windows due to the changed logo ;-)
Yes that's right, the last time I went to buy an operating system for my computer, I thought "you know what, I'm going with Windows this time becasue the logo looks cool".
Get real. It's just a logo - it's simple, effective, and everyone knows what it represents - which is precisely what good marketing is all about - brand awareness, conveying your product in a useful manner.
"Less is more". Or in the case of your predictable anti-Windows tirades, "Less is a God-send".
"It's just a logo - it's simple, effective, and everyone knows what it represents - which is precisely what good marketing is all about - brand awareness,"
Bzzt, sorry, but if you remove the text and just show the "flat flag" to a random person in the street, I absolutely guarantee that none of them will know what it represents, which is precisely why this is bad marketing -> brand anonymity.
It seems to me that the only thing "marketing consultants" are *really* good at is selling their own company. Maybe that's not so surprising, but you'd think that a company the size of Microsoft could protect itself against such sharks.
"Bzzt, sorry, but if you remove the text and just show the "flat flag" to a random person in the street, I absolutely guarantee that none of them will know what it represents"
In all fairness they would probably say something like "I dunno, a Window? Maybe some tiles?" - which pretty much fits the whole Windows and Live Tiles business.
Once people start using Windows 8 and the logo is on the charms bar, it'll soon get recognition...
@Phoenix50 - Actually, last time I went to buy an operating system for my computer none were available (pre-Linux days and Unix was too expensive). I had to buy a new PC to get the current Microsoft OS (granted, I had not purchased a PC in 4 years but the new OS would not work on my existing hardware). One of the reasons I went out and bought a Mac instead.
"Ever since 3.1 the logo has always been RGB-Y, its very distinguishable and plain out recognizable."
I'm not so sure. Starting with Google and Playstation, bright, bold colours have become something of the norm. The iconicity of the Windows logo was that it was four colours -- which colours they were doesn't really matter. Then there's the individual colour branding of MS Office apps, which has bled across to LibreOffice, imitating the ancient art of crisp-packet design (that's potato chips for those who get up late in the morning), which has further devalued Windows-colours as a brand.
And aside from that, colour technology has moved on. With fades and wipes and grades and alpha-channeling, on-screen colour works in ways that are far more different from what came before. The Start button (which is on it's way out anyway) has become increasingly out of step with every generation of Windows since 95, because it's a product of its time -- when Windows 3.x ruled the roost, there wasn't much more than a few bright, bold colours, and that was exciting. The Windows logo screamed "look, we're in colour!!!!", nowadays it just screams, and delivers no message.
> The iconicity of the Windows logo was that it was four colours
I have to wonder how many customers even notice this, frankly. I've used, and developed commercial software for, every desktop and server version of Windows since 2.0 (except Windows ME; presumably some of what I wrote would run on it, but I don't know that anyone ever tried). I couldn't have told you what the logo for any of those versions looked like without looking it up. If I saw one of those logos without the accompanying text, I'm not sure I could identify what product it was associated with.
Now, it's entirely possible that I'm in the minority here. Certainly I seem to care less about color than many other people (doesn't help that I have deficient green response, a mild form of "color blindness"). And I have never had any patience for brand loyalty or suffered marketers gladly, so perhaps I am biased against remembering logos. But I too have to wonder about Microsoft's ROI on this sort of exercise. Is it really going to mean $30M in additional profits?
I had to take an LC II to the Apple shop to see if they could mess with it and get it to boot. They were very nice, and could find all the technical manuals,but could not. That's not the point.
In the box was a series of pristine Apple Logo stickers from 1995ish. They were the apple bitten out bit, but in rainbow colours. The blue t-shirted masses nearly collapsed in fruitgasms over them.
So two points "Not even Apple fanbois take things that far" is wrong, some do. Second Apple has changed its logo through colour apples to minimalist single ones.
Downvote away...
Not as bold and decisive as IBM, apparently, who've stuck with their "8-bar" logo since 1972, while Apple's fiddled with the coloring on theirs. (Of course Apple didn't even exist in 1972. Bunch o' uppity kids.)
[Further trolling on this topic is left as an exercise for the reader.]
We're a Mac household, by and large. We do use iPhones, Macbooks, and got an Apple TV as a present. The youngest son uses an iPod touch because it came free with a computer as part of a promotion.
Partly it's a quality issue; the hardware (aside from one fan bearing after eight years of heavy use) has been very reliable. That also means that we don't need to buy replacement hardware as often, so the total cost of ownership is, at worst, comparable to Windows. Software stability is another; our work Windows machines need a lot more handholding and seem to fall over a good bit. And I won't even get into security issues (though MS seems to have improved over the years; about time, too.)
However, I'm converting my old G5 to a Linux file server and we have no iPad because we have no need for it. And the only reasons whymy older son hasn't bought an XBox is because 1) he's too lazy to earn the money, and 2) if he had the cash, he wouldn't buy something that unreliable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
