Microsoft unveils its new logo, the first major change in 25 years
173 replies, posted
I dont like how the future looks simplified and designs turn simple.
Hey that actually looks like a fucking window
Looks good. I just don't like minimalism, it makes everything look the same.
[QUOTE=garychencool;37381402]Hey, it's easier to draw...[/QUOTE]
[B]a lot[/B] easier and cheaper to print as well
[QUOTE=The Un-Men;37378493]What bugs me about it is the typography. I know it's spergy but the Typeface and even the type and background color looks like Apple's stuff.
Now now Microsoft, I know where you're going with this but there's other ways to get a new look without appearing over-expensive and oversimplified.
I think the logo itself is kickass in every way a logo should be: Recognizable, appealing to the eyes and simple.[/QUOTE]
The logo is Segoe, pretty much Microsoft's signature font.
Well it's at least significantly better than that other design that was just 4 grayish blue squares, at least now they're keeping the iconic coloration.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
Oh, never mind. Well it seems they're still backwards ass fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=LaughingStock;37378061]That S bothers me. It's shaped like an egg.[/QUOTE]
S for Soft.
S is squashed, as if it were easy to just squeeze.
Problem solved.
Also, I know that the new logo is better as it's easier to remember, but my god does it look boring. It's like the curvy bright and yellow M for McDonalds turning into a simple, Times New Roman, yellow M.
The curved and darker windows logo before looks far more iconic. But what do I know? Obviously Bevelled Rectangles with overbright colours are the fucking future compared to something more comfortable and iconic.
Aha. Point I forgot. Microsoft is turning every product into an ugly phone style that's grown old. Even the new logo signifies that, instead of the four boxes being for Windows, it is now to show Microsoft instead. Windows at the end of the day isn't the only thing Microsoft has to regurgitate. It should keep experimenting with varieties, rather than stick squares down our throats.
[QUOTE=The Worm;37380918]The new one looks terrible, and could be done in under a minute by anyone who knows how to use a square tool and MS paint.[/QUOTE]
the people who say "this could be done in 1 minute in ms paint therefore it's shit" are the same idiots who think effort = art and the same idiots who think chrome 3D logos with drop-shadows are the shit. if it can be done in 1 minute in ms paint and someone made thousands of dollars off the design, why didn't you do it? oh yeh because you have absolutely no sense of modern design and aesthetics
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37381186]Would you prefer a 3D logo full of gloss that looks busy as fuck or a simple, clean, 2D logo that gets it point across. The four iconic colours is enough for someone to pick out that it's windows and windows is Microsoft.[/QUOTE]
what you described is not what I meant with "more elaborate". In fact, what you describe is very lazy. A logo doesn't need to be busy or overworked to look outstanding and to get its point across, yet this logo is extremely simple, to the point of being dull. They put 0 effort on it. All it literally takes to create it is write Microsoft in 'Segoe UI' and put four colored squares next to it. Plus I'm one of the opinion that the MS name should be able to stand alone with no symbol or anything on its side, but now, the Microsoft logo is just the plain word written in Segoe. its typography has no signature of its own (like the previous one had).
[QUOTE]The four iconic colours is enough for someone to pick out that it's windows and windows is Microsoft.[/QUOTE]
yet ironically Microsoft is desperately trying to move away from that idea. This new era for Microsoft is them telling the rest of the world "Hey! we're not just Windows and office, look at all the cool stuff we do! We do Xbox, we do phones, we do tablets, etc..." the squares in this new logo signify that, but they really just scream 'Windows' at me. If anything, this should have been the logo for Windows 8, not for Microsoft.
ohh so thats what they change i bet they spent billions on this
Well all know they're going to make a 3D logo some time in the future. The 2D one is to make the future 3D one look better. :v: Like how cars at the beginning of the 80s were squarish and became rounded at the end of the 80s or how they made Vista so 7 would be more appealing. :v:
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;37377718]minimalism is better tbh
I cringe when I see 3D logos or menus that try to add 3D effects, so ugly and pointless[/QUOTE]
Yeah 3D is sooo old hat, 2D is the new style :v: . Remember how awesome DOS was?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;37388638]Well all know they're going to make a 3D logo some time in the future. The 2D one is to make the future 3D one look better. :v: Like how cars at the beginning of the 80s were squarish and became rounded at the end of the 80s or how they made Vista so 7 would be more appealing. :v:
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
Yeah 3D is sooo old hat, 2D is the new style :v: . Remember how awesome DOS was?[/QUOTE]
Cars were square at the start of the 80s because they had the technology to make them neat and square-y. But then they realised that rounded cars were more aerodynamic so they decided to switch to more rounded cars by the end of the 80s.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37386045]Less is more.[/QUOTE]
More or less.
I'm all for minimalism and whatnot but this is just plain boring.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;37377780]better than when companies think they are in some sci-fi anime
case in point:
[IMG]http://agentgenius.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
people complained about changes like these because they don't get how silly these look in real life, like how so many of the same nerds don't get that wearing a fedora in real life does not look good
in other words get some taste, other companies are doing it too[/QUOTE]
The old Chrome logo looks better to me. But do explain what makes the new one better rather than say people have no taste, all I can come up with is it's scalability.
I'm not a fan of that; "It's better because we say it is and we know better" mentality.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;37388977]The old Chrome logo looks better to me. But do explain what makes the new one better rather than say people have no taste, all I can come up with is it's scalability.
I'm not a fan of that; "It's better because we say it is and we know better" mentality.[/QUOTE]
It looks less like it's trying to be a real physical object and devoting itself entirely to providing a clean, easily recognizable icon. There's no reflections or shadows and only very subtle gradients in it, which make it much less 'busy'. The angle it's being viewed at has changed, rather than being a 3D shape at a slight angle it's a perfect 2D circle. This makes it easier to be used in any context, such as a mobile app icon and favicon as well as a desktop icon. It allows consistency with google's new design policies, which employ a touch of minimalism and have a new focus on internal consistency (i.e. all their android apps have similar intuitive layouts and all their icons are simple and 2D with few different colours). ANd finally it's just not as gaudy as it was, with google moving away from employing the clashing colours, metallic textures and gradients that characterized the early 2000s. This is a nice middle ground IMO between that and the completely metaphor-free designs exhibited in windows 8, with the whole metro design language consisting of text and simple monochrome glyphs.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
Honestly the move towards making their products more minimal and tasteful is something I can't fault; the company logos aren't really needed to make the change but I guess it'd look strange having your mid-2000s logo plastered all over these lovely minimal boxes for your new product. It just genuinely looks better; all the gradients and bollocks from the last decade really served to make products look like childrens' toys. Look at windows XP, that's dated horribly:
[img]http://www.crunchbase.com/assets/images/original/0006/0620/60620v4.png[/img]
Or even android 1.x:
[img]http://user-agent-string.info/pub/img/os_screenshots/android16.jpg[/img]
To be honest I like the new logo. It's simple and it gets the point across.
Ghey
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-GGT6900s&feature=player_embedded[/media]
new? I think they dipped into the archive and pulled out a relic. I guess this wasn't a product or corporate logo at the time, but whatever.
[editline]24th August 2012[/editline]
and I think they forgot to take a look at their legal pages :v:
[url]https://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/logo.aspx[/url]
I realized why microsoft have been making shitty boring metro graphics
It's all done in microsoft paint
[IMG]http://niggaupload.com/images/eZAEV.png[/IMG]
(Recreated in 3 minutes in paint)
[QUOTE=FlashFireSix;37390185]I realized why microsoft have been making shitty boring metro graphics
It's all done in microsoft paint
[IMG]http://niggaupload.com/images/eZAEV.png[/IMG]
(Recreated in 3 minutes in paint)[/QUOTE]
wrong font m8
[QUOTE=Hizan;37389998][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-GGT6900s&feature=player_embedded[/media][/QUOTE]
Why are all 90's commercials disturbing?
[QUOTE=barttool;37390419]wrong font m8[/QUOTE]
I genuinely didn't care enough to find the font used
[QUOTE=FlashFireSix;37390733]I genuinely didn't care enough to find the font used[/QUOTE]
Yet you cared enough to recreate it in Paint.
[QUOTE=Panda X;37391062]Yet you cared enough to recreate it in Paint.[/QUOTE]
Since when did people who bitch about aesthetics of a fucking logo ever make sense?
I feel like the wave is their signature so I fixed it for myself.
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/nKlCn.png[/thumb]
This is about as inoffensive as logos get. Good on them, I guess?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ySLfS.png[/IMG]
I love how all you people think that because it's easy to [b]re[/b]create, it's obviously easy to create.
Somebody had to sit down and first think of the best way to represent Microsoft in a clean, efficient manner.
Art isn't the actual drawing, it's the concept of the drawing and figuring out what you want to draw.
Jesus fuck get some common sense.
I dislike the lack of the wavy windows. Otherwise, it's okay.
At least it's better than DC's new logo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.