Windows 8 Rebrand

[elsephen]

Eh...

Looks like MS Paint is still getting some use. That's good, I guess.

[CS85]

Semi-design related, as the aesthetic of this desktop is radically different and from the looks of it, these aesthetics ruin the interface:

This looks pretty terrible.

[BBTV]

Everything looks "terrible" or "ruined" until you actually use it for more than 5 seconds.

[CS85]

Everything looks "terrible" or "ruined" until you actually use it for more than 5 seconds.

It feels like there's now 2-3 extra steps added to certain processes simply for the weirdness of the new interface. Just look at how unnecessarily deep you have to plumb simply to restart/shut down the machine.

I give you that I haven't used it and am only basing my opinion on what videos have shown me, but then again curmudgeonly dismissal is about par for the course in a BBTV post.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I've used Windows 8 for about six months now. I mostly stay in Desktop Mode and everything is the same or better than Windows 7. If you've used Windows 7, Windows 8 will be fine.

If you buy a laptop or any other computer with a touchscreen (and they'll all have them soon enough), Windows 8 will be a marked improvement.

[CS85]

I've used Windows 8 for about six months now. I mostly stay in Desktop Mode and everything is the same or better than Windows 7. If you've used Windows 7, Windows 8 will be fine.

If you buy a laptop or any other computer with a touchscreen (and they'll all have them soon enough), Windows 8 will be a marked improvement.

Can you sort of sculpt the OS to your liking? What have you done to improve/personalize your experience? (re: I won't virtually ever have to dick with the "Metro" aspect of it?)

[Ark]

I like it.

[FooMasterX5]

looks good indeed

[IceCap]

It looks like it was whipped up in 5 minutes, TBH. I still don't understand why they got rid of this logo:

It's iconic, memorable, and still the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "Windows".

Indeed. They haven't had a good logo since they switched from this one, in my opinion.

[29texan]

I just can't help but think someone actually got paid to do the new Microsoft logo.

It looks like something a 5 year old could do on Paint.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's.... kinda weak. And this has been a trend as we've been seeing a lot of logos becoming overly simple now.

[BrandMooreArt]

looks good enough to me. i like what i saw in the video, they've at least streamlined everything and brought it together into a family aesthetic. need to see it in application to truly judge it though.

[deliver2david]

I really like it. Simple and effective.

[CS85]

Simple = excellent. I like it a lot.

[andrewharrington]

I just can't help but think someone actually got paid to do the new Microsoft logo.

It looks like something a 5 year old could do on Paint.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's.... kinda weak. And this has been a trend as we've been seeing a lot of logos becoming overly simple now.

Because great global brands aren't built with complex logos, generally speaking. They're built with simple, strong, clear marks, which this is. Even better that it is able to use the company's history and reap the benefits of established equity to convey its message. With all the visual noise we have in this world, I, for one, am very glad things are becoming visually simpler.

I don't love the type here, but the icon is what they should have been using since their inception.

[drdougfresh]

I just can't help but think someone actually got paid to do the new Microsoft logo.

It looks like something a 5 year old could do on Paint.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's.... kinda weak. And this has been a trend as we've been seeing a lot of logos becoming overly simple now.

Not my favorites, but "someone was paid" to do these once upon a time, too. All something someone can easily replicate in Paint, but guess what? Did you have trouble recognizing what companies these represent?

That's the most important part of branding.

You see the four squares by itself, it's pretty obvious that's MS. It's simple, and like Andy said, it pulls company history in with it. Win-win.

[STL FANATIC]

I promise you that I appreciate simple and I hate the comment that "I could have done this" and all that.

But this is 4 squares making up a bigger square. It's not unique or original. I understand the attachment to the original Windows logo, but this is essentially that with all of the character removed.

The Microsoft brands have taken a big step forward. The brands for each branch of the company are well done. But I just can't give that same rating to this one. I'm not accusing anyone of not investing effort, but this one APPEARS lazy to me. It doesn't feel like refined simplicity, it feels lazy.

Thumbs down from this perspective.

[29texan]

But this is 4 squares making up a bigger square. It's not unique or original. I understand the attachment to the original Windows logo, but this is essentially that with all of the character removed.

THANK YOU.

Target, Chase, Apple, and McDonald's have had those brands for years and have been unique and original. This new Microsoft logo isn't. It's just 4 squares.

I'm not saying it has to be "overly complex", but it has to have something that draws your eye.

[Magnus]

I'm not ready to switch. I had enough resistance jumping from XP to 7, and I still use the Windows Classic appearance for my windows because I find Aero clunky.

[andrewharrington]

But this is 4 squares making up a bigger square. It's not unique or original. I understand the attachment to the original Windows logo, but this is essentially that with all of the character removed.

THANK YOU.

Target, Chase, Apple, and McDonald's have had those brands for years and have been unique and original. This new Microsoft logo isn't. It's just 4 squares.

I'm not saying it has to be "overly complex", but it has to have something that draws your eye.

The Windows logo has been around for decades, and this mark carries that equity with it. I don't understand how 'it's just four squares' is an argument against it when you're citing logos that are, respectively, just a few circles, just an octagon and a square, just an apple and just a couple of arches. Those marks are unique and original, despite their simplicity, and I think this one is as well. They could have introduced this mark on a billboard in Times Square with absolutely no text to support it, and I bet you most people would have guessed Microsoft. You don't think it's unique or original, but I don't think of anything else when I see four squares in those colors.

I actually think this has more character than the 'flag' versions of the Windows logo. This looks more like a window to the future. I think it could be a bit more refined, but as a mark, it's balanced well between recognizable and memorable. Clearly identifiable, but not disruptive.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I just wanted to point out that the current actual Apple logo is this:

For all of the the criticism that Microsoft sometime gets as being too slow to change, Apple is the one still holding on to gradients and a Web 2.0 look.

Microsoft has undergone a major shift in the design and function of all its major products over the last five years. It's all coalescing now with the upcoming Windows 8 launch. They're re-thinking UI design and the outward face of all of their products. As others mentioned, the individual MS products all have a stronger brand identity now than they have in the past. I think the new "Squares" corporate logo is another strong effort. It's certainly a more appropriate design than the one it replaced.