It's a stupid question. Logos aren't depictions. They're icons meant to represent something, not describe it. I never questioned the old logo. I actually liked it a lot more than the sad attempt at modernism they're announcing in this article.

It's disappointing that Microsoft doesn't seem to understand this essential design rule. They should read Paul Rand.

“Should a logo be self-explanatory? It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of that which it symbolizes."

The design was by Pentagram, not Microsoft. They are certainly more than familiar with the work Paul Rand…

Your designs can be only as inspired as the pointy-haired boss who approves them.

The new design, or the old?

Microsoft makes the fatal error here of listening to what customers say and not what they are saying.

They do this all the time and it's why their products tend to be train-wrecks, design by committee, functions by consensus, with little personality and zero fit and finish.

This logo is an abomination. It is the kind of thing a first year design student would come up with after a weekend bender and their assignment is due first thing Monday morning. It's a failing grade.

Microsoft has invested a lot in that "flag" and people know what it means because they've seen it glued to cash registers, ATMs, their notebook computers and desktops for more than ten years. It's iconic now.

To throw that out arbitrarily is reckless. Couldn't they hire a design firm with some credibility to adjust it, give it a bit more polish, take it in a slightly new direction, without trying to literally make it a window? It already says "Windows" so why repeat yourself?

I hope someone from the Metro team goes over to whomever did this and duct tapes them to a chair and forces them to hand-write an apology note in perfect Comic Sans.

The mark was done by Pentagram (http://www.pentagram.com/), one of the top design firms IN THE WORLD. I don't know how you'd plan on giving the "flag" more "polish"... Making brand marks is a LOT harder than you make it out to be. I'm not a fan of the bright blue variant but I think the mark it does a great job matching the Metro aesthetic and will be old news by the time windows 9 comes out anyway.

OT, but wow, is it me or is nearly everything in their portfolio _terrible_. 95% of that junk wouldn't make it past the first cut on a 99 designs contest.

Really? Can you point out an example of what you mean? As a design student I sometimes feel that there is a major "design disconnect" because people appreciate/gravitate towards a particular style. Designers do it too, but out of my own curiosity I'm wondering if that is happening here.

You're right. This is some serious hack-ass stuff. I had no idea a firm that huge could consistently crank out such sub-standard junk.

Very few of these show any sort of polish. Maybe it's an ironic thing to look less refined.

Whether or not you think a logo should literally depict a name, I think her point was that the logo was originally intended to be a literal window: the Windows 1.0 logo was a picture of on-screen desktop windows, the 1989 version was a physical window, but in 3.1 they hopped the rails to a wavy thing that got steadily more flag-like.

This new version is a step back to the roots of the original design. It's clean, it's clear, and I like it.

Seems I read a design article once that claimed the /best/ thing you could have for a logo was an abstract shape that consumers identified with your brand, like the Nike swoop. It's fairly unique, identifiable, and unlikely to be confused with anything else. Seems the old windows logo was that, the new one is not.

Not yet.

I think the question arose from the fact that the old logo looked like it was trying to be both a window and a flag at the same time. The reason for looking like a window was pretty obvious, but the reason for looking like a flag wasn't.

I've always wondered why it was a flag. I've never liked Windows, and the logo always struck me as creepy, like they're trying to make you choose a side: "Come march under our banner!"

I always interpreted it as a "flying window" (which was also the name of an old screensaver).

It’s a little more than just the opinion of someone named Paula, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Scher

Still, the question by itself is pretty dumb/meaningless.

It's like asking a band why all their album covers aren't them playing instruments.

Maybe years from now they'll get really specific and put the molecular formula of glass in the logo.

Maybe their intentions were good but the final result is terrible.

Just bring back the old WindowsPhone7 icon dammit!