File talk:Windows logo and wordmark - (1985-1989).svg

  The logo is FAKE! It cannot be found on windows 1.x/2.x boxes, nor it is available inside the windows 1.x/2.x versions themselves. Moreover, even "Microsoft" word was written there in another way! Here is what the logo page at BrandsOfTheWorld says:

Designer: unkown Contributor: unknown Updated on: Mon, 09/15/2008 - 08:32

Nevertheless, Wikipedia considered this to be a valuable source to display this fake logo on its pages???

Latest news: BrandsOfTheWorld.com agreed to delete the logo form its DB considering it as misleading/fake!

Aaleksanyants 08:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source?

Specifying link to http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/02/17/redesigning-the-windows-logo.aspx as a source just makes me LOL - looks like Sam Moreau or someone else at Microsoft decided to fix the initial logo missing problem by creating a fake logo which they now represent as an original Windows Logo! The same is about "More information" section - all these articles are blind derivates from the initial fake published on Windows blog...

Really, history is a subject to change... -- Aaleksanyants (talk)

I don't see any evidence anyone from Microsoft decided to create a fake logo. More likely no one knew and found the Windows 1.0 logo from numerous places including wikipedia and presumed it was correct. This self re-enforcing spread of ideas isn't unheard of unfortunately and it's something we don't actually have any good way to deal with whether on wikipedia or here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This source is a Microsoft source, so yes, it very reliable in the matter of logo. Microsoft is claiming the logo is indeed a genuine Windows 1.0 logo. If you believe otherwise, please supply your evidence. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal problem

Since they seem happy to rewrite history here on commons I think I'll try for the trademark challenge insead. I believe we are infringing on Microsoft's rights by putting out something that they never approved as being from them and with their trademark. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well since people from Microsoft themselves are saying it is the Windows 1.0 logo (both directly and as quoted from RS) or at least a Microsoft logo, I don't see how that works. As I mentioned above and elsewhere, this doesn't mean they're right but it seems to me more calm and careful discussion needs to take place based on what we actually know and what's out there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Dmcq, it appears you are constantly changing your stance, even assuming ones that are contradictory. If this logo is fantasy as you suggested earlier, then there would be no trademark concern whatsoever. If you think there is a trademark concern, then all your previous actions, including deletion request and categorizing the logo as not official is null and void. In the meantime, I advise you to study trademark laws before making such allegations.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just more silliness. A registered trademarkj is something that has its use protected. STicking it on unapproved things is misuse of the trademark and an offence. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Logo Uploading date / hoax image

Please check the logo uploading date - it is 17 September 2012, the same day it appeared in Sam Moore's article on Windows blog.... w:User:Aaleksanyants -unsigned comment

it's been on pcmag and pcadvisor website from at least feb 2012. I've found at least half a dozen instances of it across the Internet, always appearing about this time or after. I'd say it screams hoax image, produced for a story. Penyulap ☏ 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

this is about the oldest one so far, from November 2010. Penyulap ☏ 17:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

November 2009 on the MSN site with nothing to suggest it is anything to do with 1.0 or 1985. There is enough to mislead people into thinking it has to do with windows 1.0, I would say that is where it all started. If it was an actual logo, it would certainly be much more widespread across the Internet, and there would be lets say, at least 100 instances to be found, which is not the case.

Congratulations, I checked around as carefully as I could and I couldn't manage to find that. At least that person who put it in logopedia in 2010 did actually copy it from something in Microsoft it seems. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a name saying it's not an official logo, and at the very least to remove the reference to 1985. The 1985 part is not justifiable and would perpetuate the hoax. Possibly something along the lines of 'windows and watermark' or 'windows and watermark, unofficial' with no mention of 1985 Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Penyulap

Correct me if am wrong but I think the one source has the authority to definitely say whether something is fake or genuine is Microsoft itself. So, I provided a source from Microsoft saying such thing. What is wrong with that?

Again correct me if am wrong: When person X searches for something and does not find it, it does not mean that the object of search did not exist; it means person X failed to find it. In 1985 neither Internet was widespread nor PNG format was in use; and web hosting cost everyone a fortune. So, no surprise what Dmcq seeks is not found. Is it correct to deny the authoritative source and reliable publications only for the face value of the word of one single person?

I advise not letting sensationalism cloud you judgment. Proof must be supplied first.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, here is the OFFICIAL Microsoft page of their registered trademarks along with their logos (containing either (R) or TM): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx - again, there is nothing like so-called Windows 1.0 logo, the first Windows logo appeared is the 95 flag Aaleksanyants (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Good to see your account is up and running. I see Windows XP logo is also missing from that page. (And a lot of other logos too.) But I am not going to call the logo that I am seeing on another computer beside me fake. Simple explanation: The page is incomplete. (See the second source by Peny below for the missing logo.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa,

The Internet is not the primary vector on which logos and trademarks of the era would travel. That is to say, they do not in any way rely on the internet. The best way to see this, the simplest, is pick any comparable system or machine of the Era.

• Microbee
• Sinclair ZX-81
• Amiga (best computer ever made)
• CP/M
• MSDOS
• Commodore 64
• Tandy TRS-80

just pick anything of the Era, try to pick something even smaller than Windows and run a google search for '(name) logo' and it brings a gazillion hits. I don't find more than about two dozen hits for this image, and what I do find suggests the entomology of the image. I believe looking at one source that it is more likely to have started life as an artists impression of the Windows 8 logo, and has gone on from there. It is on a page about how far windows has come, from 1 - 8, but nothing at all to state that it IS windows 1 logo. If you add any two different images to the page talking of 1 and 8 and one IS clearly 8 then it stands to reason that some will assume the other image is 1 and I think that is what happened.

Microsoft sure, it IS the authority. But one guy at Microsoft being the authority ? hmm, are we talking bill gates here, or the guy who says I should fork out $800 for a word processor because there is no alternative and he should know because he works for microsoft and they are the experts and he'd never make a mistake or mislead. Well, I'd like to see it as a trademark always runs, in the media of the day, on the pictures of the boxes, the pictures of the manuals, the magazine advertisements, maybe even TV? Well, pick any combination, or just pick one. At the moment, it looks exactly like an accidentally mistaken for an official logo logo. The guy from microsoft, he may well say whatever you have found IS totally copyright and 'ours' 'ours' 'ours' cause that's what they always say, about everything. Ask a higher-up. or take it from me, I'd bet the farm on this one being nothing at all. It turns up nowhere on any media until it turns up on the net halfway through this decade this century. Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We are talking about a principal director of Windows user experience team, who is in charge of the logo. So, yes, he is the authority. Bill Gates? He is not as good as an authority because he is just an investor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

this and this pass as reliable sources, because of the additions. Same as my own art, God is in the details. (or the devil). I can see in this the urban legend being propagated from someone's mistake, and nobody's effort to do any research.

What part of this art is the most convincing ? Interestingly, it's not the station itself, is it?

That's why I got kicked off En.wiki, because I can see a fake a mile away and nothing fools me. People who run sockfarms are consumed by paranoia, fuelled by their egotistical delusion that I give a toss what they are doing. Penyulap ☏ 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. These are good sources. They prove the logo we are discussing did not appear on the front cover of Windows 1.0 package. But they don't prove that it is fake. One interesting note: Logo of Windows 3.0 is also not displayed in your TechRadar source. But it is not fake either.

And by the way, what is this video? Should I watch it? Looks like a razor... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What's a razor ? I don't understand what you mean. No, don't watch it. This is an example of a page layout that inspires misinterpretation and sets fire to the whole mess in the first place. It's maybe a windows 8 logo drawn by someone who has no access to the real thing but is drawing from memory ? who knows. It's not presented as the windows 1.0 logo, but it can be taken as being the 1.0 logo by the inattentive who want to think it is. They copy it and it's all over the net courtesy of lazy dumb-ass writers looking for a story where no story exists. Penyulap ☏ 06:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean talking about Windows 3.0 logo? If you talk about the dithered black-white window image, this is not a windows logo, but a Software Compatibility logo for software products working with Windows 3.0. The first time it appeared was 28 May, 1990 in InfoWorld magazine (scans can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=nzsEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false - scroll to pages S10, S12 and S38). The FLAG appeared only starting from Windows 3.1 which was released TWO YEARS AFTER Windows 3.0 release Aaleksanyants (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[Bill Gates and Windows 1.0 setup floppy] [Bill Gates and a PC running Windows 1.0]

In 1985 Bill Gates wasn't aware that Windows logo already exists :-)

-Aaleksanyants

Yeah! that's wot I'm talkin' about ! Oh yeah ! Penyulap ☏ 08:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the use by Microsoft of the logo in November 2009 to head a Windows live broadcast which was about the history of the logos shows they have no objection to it representing Windows. It looks to me that their later use in 2012 in Redesigning the Windows Logo is probably because of the copy at Logopedia called File:2000px-Windows_1.0_logo.svg.png set up in 2010 just before the 25th annivesary was copied by a couple of magazines looking for a picture. This seems to be the first time it was explicitly associated with windows 1.0 and was probably just a mistaken interpretation of the Windows webcast page. It would be interesting to know why Microsoft put the logo up in 2009 but it is pretty clear that logo was not used publicly as a logo for early versions of Windows. And a logo isn't a logo if it isn't used.

As for requiring proof of non-existence that is not required. We need reasonable proof of existence not of non-existence. Just because someone in Microsoft said something happened in 1985 when the evidence points very strongly otherwise on such a public thing as this does not mean it is so. That doesn't make it a logo used for the product then. It simply means that person was very probably mistaken in their 2012 blog. There's good reasons blogs are suspect on the English Wikipedia, they can be trustworthy for people like this but they are not the last word on the matter and infallible. Even official statements can be wrong, much more so blogs. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on what we already know

As I mentioned above, we need to actually look at what we know. I don't get why people were talking about it being from 2012 when we know it was uploaded to wikipedia on 2010-02-19 as per the upload log visible on the image description page right now and also visible in the original upload [1]. If there is any doubt it was really uploaded in 2010, I'm sure an admin can confirm it. Yes, it was transferred to commons in 2012 but who gives a damn? Edit: BTW you can see the logs for the original files on wikipedia here [2] [3]. I took me a while to find these because I got confused by a rename. It seems the logo actually may have appeared in December 26 2009. I actually came across something which may resolve all this confusion, but more on that later....

Similarly while the 2009 link is slightly useful, let's not forget it was uploaded to brands of the world in 2008 [4] as the Windows 1.0 logo and copied to Wikipedia on 2010-02-19 unless people also want to disbelieve the upload log in brands of the world. (While the link is new, the IP who started this copied the date information on the RD, and I know many here came from the RD. And the date information was also copied to this page by Aaleksanyants. In any case, the original image listed brands of the world as a source before people decided to replace it with random other stuff so it made sense to check when it first appeared in brands of the world.)

In other words, as I said above, can we actually look carefully at what we know first rather then getting all excited about other stuff? We knew this or at least I knew and everyone else should have known this before the whole frenzy broke out since the information was right here. As of now, the earliest info we have on the logo is from 2008 (09/11/2008 in particular) and not from Microsoft. The 2009 from Microsoft does demonstrate for Microsoft it probably didn't come from us* since AFAIK there isn't any evidence we had it before 2010-02-19 (or probably December 26 2009) but it's clearly not the earliest appearance of the logo we know of. (*)Well more correctly, it demonstrates it didn't come from us the first time. This is a bit tricky since it's still possible the second time it did come from us.

Claims it originated in 2012 or September 2010 or was first linked with Windows 1.0 just add unnecessary confusion when they are clearly contradicted by the fact it was appearing as the Windows 1.0 logo in 2008 and uploaded to wikipedia as the same thing in 2010-02-19 (or probably December 26 2009). If people want to disbelieve the July 2010 archive of brandsoftheworld showing the upload log there from 2008 then I guess we can't currently demonstrate it being the Windows 1.0 logo before 2010 or the 2009 Microsoft page? But can they make it clear they are disputing the brandsoftheworld upload log? And either way, we do at least know it was the Windows 1.0 logo on wikipedia on 2010-02-19 (or probably December 26) so anything to do with logopedia in September 2010 seem largely irrelevant. (If people want to disbelieve the upload log from when the file was bot uploaded to commons,aren't convinced the 2010 file is the same as the one here, they are free to ask an admin to clear up any doubts about the original file on wikipedia.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks largely to paying attention to wikipedia itself, I've worked out where the logo came from. And no it wasn't a later invention. See below Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So here is the conclusion: the logo appeared for the first time on brandsoftheworld.com where it was uploaded by unknown author on 2008 (this is just what I wrote in the first post on the top of the page). This is the point from where it began to spread, and this should be considered as a source rather than posts in MSN (in 2009) and Windows blogs (in 2012) on the file descrition page. -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nil

We know more than what you said: We know that Microsoft Principal Director of WUE team has confirmed this logo is theirs. In that case, your trace origin must factor in another issue: The versions we have at hand are SVG or PNG, which are modern file formats. No one could have created them 30 years ago. If this logo is genuine (which Microsoft says it is), it must have been originated in an older format like EPS.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to write up an article about hoaxes on the internet, that source would be a good one to point out microsoft being fooled into thinking the logo belongs to them. It fails for me as a reliable source as it is simply some guy copying stuff from the internet. The magazines we have seen in archives with the advertising from the period and the photos of software boxes and so on are reliable by comparison.

While commons is not about writing articles, it would be helpful if it didn't spread hoaxes, there is nothing to suggest this image is from last century. Penyulap ☏ 10:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Dmcq just proved that this logo is indeed genuine. Evidence is published in my talk page in Wikipedia. So, we know something else: The logo was not hoax and your skill at discovering fake things is not to be trusted at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of us have learnt something out of this, like the logo is genuine. Possibly others have learnt the difference between some guy's blog and an actual source, which is something I know well. Penyulap ☏ 17:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Valid early Windows logos

This is the image that can be considered as the first graphical Windows logo ever known - it appeared in 1990 inside "About" box of the Windows 3.0 program manager: http://toastytech.com/guis/win30progman.gif Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Here I made SVG file and uploaded it:

For your amusement here on the official Microsoft Windows history page you can see a picture of Bill Gates holding a WIndows 3.1 box but it is entitled "Bill Gates shows the newly-released Windows 3.0". But they say it is 3.0 so perhaps I'm wrong about that and trolling. ;-)

Actually there was a 3.0 logo for ads for compatible software but I haven't found it here on Commons, it is a monochrome and grainy window with four panes and some shadowing and a large version of it appears in the background for some things. There is a version of it on [5] Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not of a good quality, but it is here: File:Windows_3.0_compatible_logo.png

The first Windows logo which should be considered as the first official one, dated by April 1992: File:Windows 3.1 logo.svg

The valid Windows 3.1 logo is submitted for deletion while fake Windows 1.0 logo should stay???

Please check: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_3.1_logo.svg

Could you please sign your contributions with ~~~~. It looks in the section before as if I stuck in those pictures whereas you did.

What you have put in as a 3.0 logo is not a logo, it is an icon. Wikipedia has a good description of what a logo is: "A logo is a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition", whereas a computer icon is "a pictogram displayed on a computer screen and used to navigate a computer system or mobile device."

Also as to that deletion request something wrong being done in one place does not justify something wrong being done in another. As far as I can see the Windows 3.1 logo is an artistic design and it should only be used in Wikipedia in restricted circumstances. The article about Windows 3.1 is one of those so there's no great loss removing it from Commons. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

According to your post, Commons is NOT a Wikipedia? Up to now I was thinking that Commons is just a storage of media files which can be used not only in English section of Wikipedia but also in all other localized sections, that's why uploading logos of a world-wide known operating system in local sections does not seem to be a good solution... What about logo/icon discussion for windows 3.0 image, in fact this really looks like a icon, but the object it represents is a window, and a program manager showing it has its own icon image which looks too different... Aaleksanyants (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons is a media repository for free media. It's intended to act as a media repository for all wikimedia project, which includes both English and other language wikipedias but also other projects like wikinews, wikisource, wikivoyage .... However it's not required that the media be used in any particular project. And note the key word free. If the Windows logo isn't free because it's eligible for copyright (and therefore almost definitely copyrighted by Microsoft), then it can't be kept on commons. Each project is free to use such media according to their own NFCC if they have one and it complies. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

All Windows logos listed in WikiMedia in SVG format (including Windows Me, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 logos) fall under the Microsoft Trademarks Policy which can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/General.aspx - regarding their usage it just requires to include an attribution of Microsoft ownership of the trademark(s) in the credit notice section of documentation or advertisement. Also, if the particular logo does not comply with WikiMedia's own Policy, how did it become that all other Windows logos do? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the logo

While researching my comments above reminding people to pay attention to what we already know I belatedly worked out why I couldn't see the upload logs on wikipedia, I was looking at the wrong filename. Once this was resolved, I found the original upload logs. As the file was SVG and there was some suggesting it was converted from a PNG although I wasn't sure if this was ever uploaded to wikipedia, I happened to check [6] which demonstrated some file purported to be the Windows 1.0 logo had in fact appeared on wikipedia since 2005. As I would have noticed when I got around to checking the page history [7] [8]. (I had checked the page history for early 2010, it was how I realised I had missed that the file had been renamed.) So my own claim of it being uploaded to us in 2010 from something uploaded to brands of the world in 2008 goes out the window. From my reading of the upload logo, I think the 'brandsoftheworld' claims was actually partial confusion because someone created the file from there and then uploaded it here even though we'd had a similar file. In fact I would say there's a fair chance the brandsoftheworld logo could have come from us anyway. I.E. Someone uploaded the file to brandsoftheworld in 2008 from us, then someone in 2010 (or was it 2009?) created an SVG from brandsoftheworld and uploaded it to us. Not being an admin, I can't see what the older file was.

In any case, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I also checked out [9] which provides a very big clue in the log. It was from a WinSDK boxshot. Sure enough a quick search finds [10] from a developer conference. The info there from 1986 shows it's not a recent creation. From what I can gather from there, it was in fact used as a Windows 1 logo. (Probably the SDK may provided more info on the intended usage of the logo.) Note it doesn't look like it's being used to identify the SDK, in fact it looks like it's being used to represent Windows. In particular, it looks like it was also intended to be used to identify applications designed for Windows 1.0 so it's not even solely used to represent Windows to developers but also was intended for the general public. Whether it was ever actually used for those purposes, I can't say for sure. I suspect some more careful searchong would confirm but I can't be bothered. I did do a quick search for applications for Windows 1.0 and instead found another interesting thing. [11] is a press release from Microsoft from 1985. You can clearly see the logo in the first page although it has no colour and the Microsoft Windows is just written over the logo rather at the side. So while it doesn't seem to have been used all the time and doesn't seem to have been on Windows itself or on the boxes, it was publicly used as a logo to represent Windows. (I suspect a fair amount more then what we've seen. While I can't speak for others, I haven't actually come across that much material from the time.) As to how to proceed from here, I leave that up to others.

Incidentally, press material was one thing I didn't find in my earlier search before this mess blew up. The lack of press material as well as any advertising brochures (I found some magazine advertisement as well as lame TV ads and of course screenshots and box shots) was one reason I was reluctant to conclude the logo was never used. But I never actually searched for 'press windows 1.0' if I had I would have found it and hopefully avoided this mess. (I would have also found [12], a reminder that Microsoft missing release dates is not new.) Funnily enough I did come across mention of the Windows SDK in one of the ads and even had a brief search for info about it but never found much.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Despite what's been said elsewhere, I haven't see any evidence of a different logo ever being used for Windows 1.0. From what I can tell, either this logo was used (well there is also the same logo albeit rotated) or none at all (instead simply the words Microsoft Windows). Most of the time the Microsoft logo is used, but AFAIK the Microsoft logo is intended to represent Microsoft not Windows. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.hartbrothers.com/dave/windows1dev.html is a pretty reliable source for it appearing in '86. Penyulap ☏ 11:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay then I shall have to eat humble pie. But anyway thanks for that. I do wish this image had got a proper history on it in Commons or had indicated the previous image - I guess I should have thought more about the name but I thought they just converted it from a png separate from commons. I'll go and write to the various people I sent queries to about it saying that it has been found. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You and me both, but at least now it has a proper history available. Penyulap ☏ 11:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Plus, you and I didn't call anyone a troll. :D Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nor did I :-) -- Aaleksanyants (talk)