Metro>=XP=Aero>Classic>Primitive(1,2)=MDL2>=Fluent
>>45154285 - cool92 - weird but memorable95 - a downgrade01 - amazing12 - soulless21 - a bit bland, but at least so plain it is kinda interesting againxp>win7>win10 have been my personal favourite ms os' so far.
>>451555Should have been made in German style if you catch my drift.
why is there even a win 11? didn't they say win 10 to be the last os they make?
>>451555Used the word "soul", opinion irrelevant. kys
95 GOAT
>>451560autistic solitudinarian that refuses to understand others, opinion irrelevant. have an ambiguous day.
>>451542
>>4515421992-1995 and 1995-2001 are incorrectly swapped in this image.Anyway, in terms of logos/marketing 1995-2001 is my favorite (2K/ME especially) but in terms of UI, Aero is.
>>4515421992 > 2001 > 1995 > 1985 >>>>> 2012 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>4515421992 was the best
2012-2021 is BY FAR the best, first one that actually suggests the brand name of the product at a glance like a brand symbol is supposed to instead of being a shitty drawing of a multi- colored flagFirst and only one that uses perspective in a refined way, that doesn't look like a 3rd grader drew itThe latesr one is a perfect example of changing something that didn't need it and fucking it up.The earlier multi-colored ones are just embarrassing and would look retarded and juvenile on children's toys, especially the first two with the fat ugly black keylines.
>>452661With the 92 - 2001 logos they probably wanted to convey that it puts your data on a computer window visually.
I honestly thought they had the winning formula back in 2012, ever since then it's been oversimplified garbage.
>>451542>85 It honestly looks like a prisons lunch plate. I like the off the wall vibe but the rounded corners and the dullness of it gives the whole thing depression. If we went back to 85's design I today I'm sure /gd/ bro's would riot.>92 Honestly this one is my personal favorite. It's just off center and odd enough to stand out without being too wild, plus the added symbolism of the window frame goes a long way.>95 Slightly worse than 92's mainly due to the pungent colors and stretched aspect ratio. I wouldnt be surprised if this logo was designed to fit within 1995 computer specs.>01Better colors, but not much else. They cut our a lot of what made the design unique to fit within more simplistic design trends and it shows.>12 - You have made the antithesis of 85' and magnified it's worst aspects. It is now plain and cut back into blasé nothingness. The color was that last bit of soul and you ripped it out.>21Simplicity at it's finest. Contract's you made the next minesweeper icon! Or could it be a game of four square? Honestly it sucks hard.
>>4515421992 and 2001 goes hard
>>4515422001 - 2012Soul
>>453290If by "soul" you mean "utterly devoid of anything that would cause an unfamiliar observer to think "windows" or even computers in general given a million years to look at it" then you are correct, sir.
>>453291lol how is *that* your criterion??as is the case with nike, mercedes, starbucks, playboy, google and most other well known businesses.marketing isn't aimed at people a million years from now, but at current sensibilities...what you are saying is absolutely retarded and embarrassingly bitter!>nooooooo you cannot like the audi logo it doesnt have anything obvious to do with the act of listening or cars reeeeeee
>>453292>as is the case with nike, mercedes, starbucks, playboy, google and most other well known businesses.Fist of all, "Windows" is not the name of a company, it's a product.As for the companies you mention-> NikeNike's "swoosh" logo is a stylized wing, inspired by the wings of the Greek goddess Nike.>Mercedesthe 3 pointed "star" device in a circle was a mixture of two older badges and (like the BMW logo) at the time represented in part their manufacture of aircraft engines by suggesting a propeller.Also, unlike the early iterations of the Windows logo that were rightly dropped for being shitty, that logo is recognized because it is a century old...older if you count pre-merger use. It hasn't been drastically altered since the mid 1920s because it is a great logo.>StarbucksLogo started as something entirely different and has gone through a number of revisions which indicate that there was a problem (duh)...also totally not germane since Starbuck is a fictional character from a novel and impossible to represent in a recognizable form in a logo the way a window can.>Playboy"Why choose a rabbit to start with for an adult magazine brand? Hugh Hefner, the creator and chief editor of Playboy Magazine, addressed this query: “The rabbit, the bunny, in America ***has a sexual meaning***, and I chose it because it’s a fresh animal, shy, vivacious, jumping – ***sexy***. First, it smells you, then it escapes, then it comes back, and ***you want to caress it, to play with it***. A girl resembles a bunny, joyful, joking.” ">GoogleLike Starbucks, not an object that can be represented realistically by a recognizable graphic, it's essentially meaningless out of context. Also an incredibly shitty logo.>Audi-"In 1932...With the formation of Auto Union, a new logo was introduced...This logo featured four rings, each representing one of the four brands (Audi, DKW, Horch, and Wanderer), connected together."Four auto brands unified...Auto Union.
>>453300>Fist of all, "Windows" is not the name of a company, it's a product.exactly. it is the logo of a company. hence my examples of even more companies. -.->business logo inspiration tangentexactly. and microsoft is inspired by a window.excuse me wtf are you arguing against exactly? nobody said these logos *not to even have* meaningful origin?! I pointed out how dumb the notion is that this meaning has to be extractable from purely looking at the thing without more context. you just showed how that is actually the case.honestly, learn to read...
>>453301
>>453307*gasp* rude!
best to worst1. (2001-2012)2. (1993-1995)4. (1995-2001)5. (1985-1989)6. (2021-present)7. (2012-2021)
>>45155521 isn't interesting your just glad there's a change for the first time in a decade.
>>453333possible. I still prefer it over what came before and think the super reductionist approach having been the correct choice at this point.
>>451542>1985Kinda lame.>1992Peak.>1995Bad.>2001Good>2012Soulless.>2021This is four squares.
>>451571>but in terms of UI, Aero is.Vista Aero or 7 Aero? They're 2 different beasts.
>>452661I never want to become friends with someone who thinks the best Windows logo was the worst one.
>>453532You say that as if anyone so petty and shallow could actually have real friends.
The watercolor theme from Whistler is where Microsoft's UI aesthetic peaked.
>>451542Like >>451571 said, 2 and 3 need to be swapped.Early Windows had brighter colors because the color palette was more limited on some PCs. The more pastel colors came with 98 and Me, when SVGA 24-bit color was the norm.
>>4515427 > XP > Vista > 95 > 10 > 11
>>451542win 7 classic had nice click sounds, didn't ship with dwm enabled and felt very snappyit was also simplistic and not overloaded with poorly functioning features, so it was better for workflow than 10/11obviously nothing beats macosx 10.6-10.7that was just and orgasmic beauty of ui/ux
>>454195This was true minimalism, succeeds at being visually appealing and not too distracting.Flatshitters today would never achieve doing something like this, as much as they try.
>>45154295, XP, 98/2000, then Windows 10.Windows 95 is really something else dude
>>451542You complete retard why did you swap the Windows 3.0 and 95 logosThe 2001 logo did vary quite a bitXP had a different gradient, Vista had an orb and a more detailed gradient and 7 was Vista but without an orb
>>451542Aero>MCE2005>Classic=Luna>Metro=Fluent>Primitive
>>453291Nobody gives a shitIt looks nice and is recognizable to the eye
>>451555>21 - a bit bland, but at least so plain it is kinda interesting againwhat the hell are you smoking? it looks boring as shit, at least 2012 implies movement/dimension like the previous designs
>>451558Because of money and fuck you, that's why.You never win with Microcock.
>>451542new trend is coming back to retro shit, 1992 is coming back
