Actually quite impressed. Not because of the logo's quality, since it's not that a radical change, but because Microsoft finally got the guts to make a change.
Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
231–240 of 243 posts
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#232This logo just screams "compromise".
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#233For me... personally, the logo doesn't work. I am slightly colour blind. The logo in the article I see just fine, and all of the squares are the same size. And I get it... Metro theme. The favicon.ico and small logo on Microsoft.com Those don't fair as well. The red and yellow squares are much larger than the green and blue, and my eyes see a throbbing line around the bottom and left of the red box, and a black line…
I'm not color blind, but I see the same thing. Shading creates the effect of the boxes being different sizes even though they're not. Here's a screenshot: https://twitter.com/thomashpark/status/238665017145303040/ph...
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#234Looks more like a new version of Windows logo to me.
It's interesting they would make a point of incorporating the old Windows logo. Microsoft is a company trying to reinvent itself, and the industry consensus is that Windows has an uncertain future at best. It has failed completely in the phone and tablet markets that would seem to be the future of consumer computing. So is this a statement of defiance or a company in denial?
i think Microsoft hasn't even gotten started in the phone and tablet markets yet. thats coming soon. should be interesting.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#235I still don't get why Microsoft is pushing Metro SO HARD to bet everything on it when nobody really likes it that much. Zune (where I saw it for the first time) failed in the market. Windows Mobile (that has the Metro theme) failed in the market. Now I don't know XBox (at all) and its GUI, but its success happened long before Metro was created. People don't seem to like it in the new Windows preview all that much, ei…
Similarly the Ribbon. The Ribbon was supposed to make Office easier to use. It was so incomprehensible (not to mention annoying and wasteful of screen real estate), Microsoft created a GAME to explain to users how to use the Ribbon. (How bad a UI fail is that?) Still no-one likes it, so they shoehorn it into more places. I think Microsoft gets that Apple doesn't allow itself to be driven by focus groups, but instead…
no one liked the ribbon? data point here: i liked it. i think its very logically arranged and straightforward to use. i could never understand the frothing hate for it. because it has clear categories, and a nice visual layout of buttons and functions? because it doesnt have enough cluttered text menus?
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what mean about it not being part of Microsoft's DNA, but it seems like you're trying to blame Microsoft's poor web presence on its age. How do you then rationalize other pre-Web companies like IBM and Apple who have managed to successfully embrace it?
In what parallel universe has Apple embraced the web to a greater degree than Microsoft?
Their browser works?
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#237Interesting... I've never seen this before: http://i.imgur.com/Ag3fl.jpg Edit: found better res
I did vote for that one, but I am listening to 80s metal right now - that may have influenced me.
hell yeah. I'm even tempted to cut out the logo itself from the jpg and use it as a desktop background. Hard to imagine a company now so huge ever used a logo so dark that screams metal all over the place
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how you change it in the browser of another person that you sent this link to.
Why would you want to do that? The content is (should be) identical, and the recipient of your link would most likely want to read the content in his/her preferred language. If you really wanted to point out to them some discrepancy in the content of some particular language, then just tell them "switch your language to Chinese and look at xxx here". On sites where linking to a particular language version of some res…
Microsoft itself provides a prime example for this: Knowledge-Base articles are often poorly translated and you really want to link to the english version if there is no translation available. Implicit content switches are really bad for the user experience.
Also, language versions of big websites often differ hierarchically as well, with the differences in hierarchy being directly bound to the language. On Wikipedia, the problem is so big that it is actually moved to the domain (the highest level of the hierarchy).
(should be): yes. It should be. In the ideal world of people that constructed RFCs. Sadly, there is a real world out there.
In the end, with my users hat on: I don't care. I want to send a link and I assume that my peer sees exactly what I see. I don't want to care about the details of your technical implementation of your website and whether it is structurally sound in the grand scheme of the interwebs. I also don't want to say "and switch to..." every time I send a link.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market wasn't then, and isn't now, zero-sum. Microsoft's domination was achieved by making passable-to-excellent browsers in the beginning and putting them on the desktop, which made the web more accessible to millions of people, boosted commerce, and pushed feature development forward much more quickly than Netscape (or any company) would have done absent competition. Bigger market, bigger pie, more investment,…
> The market wasn't then, and isn't now, zero-sum. How many desktop operating systems are normal people going to use? Operating systems don't tend to be complementary (people running multiple OSes and desktop VMs are the exception, not the rule... especially back in the 90s).
That's not what zero-sum implies; you don't have to run two browsers, or two OSes, to refute it.
The marketshare numbers you see are percentages. Say Netscape has 80% of the market of 1M people, and IE4 is popular enough that NS's share dwindles to 30% as IE's rises to 70%. If we're still dealing with 1M total users, the market is zero-sum in that NS's losses are exactly MS's gains.
My contention is that IE4 was so good for its time that it grew the overall internet market; instead of 1M casual users, we have, say, 5M. If NS's marketshare fell from 80% of 1M to 30% of 5M, their user base actually went from 800K to 1.5M. IE4 killed them in share, but helped the overall market and Netscape in particular, by users and revenue.
To assert that it was a zero-sum game is to assert that the market was inelastic relative to the available browsers, which seems ridiculous. Better browsers = more users.
Re: Microsoft gets a new logo for the first time since 1987
#240Is it just me or does the laptop in this (stock?) banner photo on their homepage look like a Macbook? (With the Apple logo photoshopped off.)
http://i.microsoft.com/global/ImageStore/PublishingImages/As...
