Recommended Posts

What the hell is that?? :huh:

From Wikipedia

A favicon (short for favorites icon), also known as a website icon, shortcut icon, url icon, or bookmark icon is an icon associated with a particular website or webpage (
)

Better than the purple thing they had before..

If you guys don't see it, its the typical Google colors shaped to make a white "g"

I agree.

Yeah, I noticed the change. I first thought it was for Google Images only, because the old favicon showed for Google web search, although I later realized it was because my favicon cache hadn't cleared. I prefer the blue 'g' favicon though as it's much more subtle.

Yeah I saw it too. I don't know what the deal is with that colour scheme though :wacko: :D

I had to re-read your post a few times until I saw that grin :p

This is what I said about the new favicon before:

I like it, although I think it's maybe wayyyy to colourful for something like Google which has the worst website design I have ever seen! The last favicon went with their boring, disgusting layout much better than this one.

I wish they would update their layout to go with this new favicon and be less 'minimal' and I might actually start liking Google!

Even Microsoft Live Search got rid of their beautiful interface become more 'minimalistic' to please the lovers of Google's disgustingly minimal user interface! :/ (although Microsoft did their 'minimal' design better, it's a shame Google's relevance in search results seems better).

I had to re-read your post a few times until I saw that grin :p

This is what I said about the new favicon before:

I like it, although I think it's maybe wayyyy to colourful for something like Google which has the worst website design I have ever seen! The last favicon went with their boring, disgusting layout much better than this one.

I wish they would update their layout to go with this new favicon and be less 'minimal' and I might actually start liking Google!

Even Microsoft Live Search got rid of their beautiful interface become more 'minimalistic' to please the lovers of Google's disgustingly minimal user interface! :/ (although Microsoft did their 'minimal' design better, it's a shame Google's relevance in search results seems better).

I use a search engine to find stuff, not look pretty.

I use a search engine to find stuff, not look pretty.

That's fair enough, Joel. Each to his own :)

However, if you say that, surely the same should be applied to any website you use? Any software you use? Even, any operating system you use? After all, you are just using Google to search for websites, just like you are just using Windows, Mac OS X or Linux to run applications, right?

I don't know what operating system you use, but would you not mind then if Windows, Apple or the developers of the Linux distro you use decided to strip all the decent images and colours out of their design and just go for a plain white design with a few horrible blue links in random places? And, of course a logo in a horrible Times New Roman font with different colours...

How about if the same was applied to the iPod touch (or whatever MP3 player you use)? After all, you are only using that to listen to music.

If the interface of your mobile phone was just plain pure white with a few blue links for menu items and black text, I take it you wouldn't mind? After all, you are just using your phone to make calls, take pictures, text people, view calendars, etc, right? Why care about a nice looking interface...?

Google has the functionality, so what's the harm in implementing a nice look which wouldn't disadvantage the loading time? (i.e. just a few divs and different shades/colours? Maybe some light images here and there).

The new favicon is brilliant and the logo needs a better font style, I reckon!

That's fair enough, Joel. Each to his own :)

However, if you say that, surely the same should be applied to any website you use? Any software you use? Even, any operating system you use? After all, you are just using Google to search for websites, just like you are just using Windows, Mac OS X or Linux to run applications, right?

I don't know what operating system you use, but would you not mind then if Windows, Apple or the developers of the Linux distro you use decided to strip all the decent images and colours out of their design and just go for a plain white design with a few horrible blue links in random places? And, of course a logo in a horrible Times New Roman font with different colours...

How about if the same was applied to the iPod touch (or whatever MP3 player you use)? After all, you are only using that to listen to music.

If the interface of your mobile phone was just plain pure white with a few blue links for menu items and black text, I take it you wouldn't mind? After all, you are just using your phone to make calls, take pictures, text people, view calendars, etc, right? Why care about a nice looking interface...?

Google has the functionality, so what's the harm in implementing a nice look which wouldn't disadvantage the loading time? (i.e. just a few divs and different shades/colours? Maybe some light images here and there).

The new favicon is brilliant and the logo needs a better font style, I reckon!

So, you like form over function?

I use Windows XP, in Classic mode. I don't use an MP3 player. My phone's UI is just enough for me (Motorola v635).

Your first example about websites makes no sense. If the website is flashy, it's probably trying to get your attention to sell you something. That's called advertising. Most informational sites are not cesspits of colours and Flash. Can you imagine if Wikipedia looked like something Tinky Winky barfed up? No one would go near the place.

So, you like form over function?

I use Windows XP, in Classic mode. I don't use an MP3 player. My phone's UI is just enough for me (Motorola v635).

Your first example about websites makes no sense. If the website is flashy, it's probably trying to get your attention to sell you something. That's called advertising. Most informational sites are not cesspits of colours and Flash. Can you imagine if Wikipedia looked like something Tinky Winky barfed up? No one would go near the place.

No. I like good form and efficient functionality. I look at functionality in products first (which is why I am looking above the new Windows Live Photo Gallery's inconsistencies and the fact we cannot change the colour, like we can on the rest of the Windows Live Essentials). However, it does not take much effort to implement a nice simple, minimalistic, user interface as well as keeping the effcient functionality which is already present. Google have opted to include an ugly, minimalistic, user interface. It looked a bit better when they decided to use tabs for the different search options and even better when they moved these search options to the top left of the screen, but the blue on the links is still an awful colour (maybe a lighter shade or a darker shade of blue would look nicer, or, even a nice shade of green). The logo is stll a horrible Times font (although I will accept that this is how people recognise Google and maybe that will have to stay like that) :rolleyes:. There is also too much white.

Google could easily implement a few more shades of whitish colours, or lighter shades of colours in it's logo around the homepage and search results page. I mean after all it's new favicon is colourful, why not the website? If they didn't want to opt for a colourful website when they could have more whitish or greyish shades (like a bit of a darker white on that top bar with the links).

My suggestions here are not the best, but Google really could make it all look much better than it does. Even changing the colour of the links and messing about with different HEX codes would benefit the layout.

Like I said, I choose form and functionality. Windows now has the features, so why not make it look nice by using the beautiful Aero glass and using things like Flip3D every now and then.

The features are there whether you use classic mode or Aero (or on XP that awful Fischer Price looking Luna theme - I can see why you use classic).

Obviously, like I said, each to his own, but why use an awful looking interface and why make your website look awful when it already has the functionality and it does not take much effort (and will not increase loading times) by just tweaking the interface a bit to make it look nicer).

cJr., I think you've kinda looked into Joel's statement about only using Google to search a bit too much ;).

Haha :D

I don't see how I have really?

It is the same principle - if he doesn't care about the look of Google because he only uses it to search then he shouldn't care about the look of his operating system or any other user interface he uses surely? (as he only uses it for functionality).

:)

Joel has already replied to proove that he doesn't care about the look of Windows, etc, anyway.

I care more about the features of a product than anything, but it helps a lot if that interface looks nice :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft finally admits its default Windows 11 25H2, 24H2 action broke key legacy component by Sayan Sen Microsoft last week released Windows 11 KB5094126 and KB5093998 as the latest Patch Tuesday updates. Following that the company also published the accompanying dynamic updates under KB5094149, KB5095971, and KB5094156. So far the company has acknowledged two known issues that have popped up after the release which include bugged-out Office apps as well as the Recycle Bin; though there could be more at play too. Speaking of bugs and issues, Microsoft seems to have finally acknowledged a problem that probably has been around for close to a year. That's because back in July of 2025 the company made a default change to the latest Windows 11 versions, wherein it switched to JScript9Legacy on Windows 11 24H2 and later releases. Hence following the release of version 25H2 in October 2025, JScript9Legacy also remained default-enabled. As a result there has been a compatibility issue ever since then. For those wondering, by switching to JScript9Legacy Microsoft intended to improve the security of modern Windows PCs by reducing vulnerabilities tied to legacy scripting like cross-site scripting (XSS), among others. XSS exploits can allow cyber-attackers to attach malicious code onto legitimate websites and use them to execute the code when a potential victim loads such a website. Hence the new JScript9Legacy engine enforced stricter execution policies and improved object handling, which should help mitigate such attacks. Microsoft today has published a new support article detailing the problem. Neowin spotted it while browsing. The company says that JScript global definitions and execution context may fail to persist across scripts, potentially breaking older dependent apps and web-based components that relied on this legacy behavior. In the article Microsoft has confirmed that the issue stems from its move away from the older jscript9.dll engine in favor of jscript9legacy.dll. As mentioned above, while the newer engine was designed to address vulnerabilities and strengthen security it also changes how JScript handles execution context. As a result functions and definitions loaded by one script could no longer remain available to subsequent scripts once execution ended. The company notes that some applications worked correctly on earlier Windows versions because the older JScript engine automatically retained global definitions and execution state between scripts. Under the newer model though that behavior is disabled by default causing certain legacy workloads and polyfill-dependent scripts to fail. Microsoft says it addressed the problem via the KB5077241 update though the fix had not been enabled automatically in the following updates. As such admins must explicitly turn on persistent JScript execution context using a Registry setting that the tech giant shared today. The configuration can be applied to individual processes or system-wide through the FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE registry key. The steps have been outlined below: Run the following command to create the feature control registry key: reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\FeatureControl\FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE" Under this key, create a new DWORD (32-bit) value. Configure the value as follows: To enable persistence for specific processes only: Set the value to 1 for each target process name. To enable persistence for all processes: Add * as the key name and set its value to 1. You can find the official support article here on Microsoft's website.
    • The possibility that milk gathers back into a glass implies that gravity can be 'reversed'.
    • VidCoder 12.20 by Razvan Serea  VidCoder is a DVD/Blu-ray ripping and video transcoding application for Windows. It uses HandBrake as its encoding engine. Calling directly into the HandBrake library gives it a more rich UI than the official HandBrake Windows GUI. VidCoder can rip DVDs but does not defeat the CSS encryption found in most commercial DVDs. You’ll need the NET 8 Desktop Runtime. If you don’t have it, VidCoder will prompt you to download and install it. The Portable version is self-contained and does not require any .NET Runtime to be installed. You do not need to install HandBrake for VidCoder to work. Feature list: Multi-threaded MP4, MKV containers Completely integrated encoding pipeline: everything is in one process and no huge intermediate temporary files H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VP8, Theora video Hardware-accelerated encoding with AMD VCE, Nvidia NVENC and Intel QuickSync AAC, MP3, Vorbis, AC3, FLAC audio encoding and AAC/AC3/MP3/DTS/DTS-HD passthrough Target bitrate, size or quality for video 2-pass encoding Decomb, detelecine, deinterlace, rotate, reflect, chroma smooth, colorspace filters Powerful batch encoding with simultaneous encodes Customizable Pickers to automatically pick audio and subtitle tracks, destination, titles and more Instant source previews Creates small encoded preview clips Pause, resume encoding VidCoder 12.20 changes: Updated HandBrake core to 1.11.2. Download: VidCoder 12.20 | 47.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Portable VidCoder 12.19 | 89.3 MB Link: VidCoder Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Too soon, I'm still not over this death!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Jordan Smith earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      593
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      185
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      77
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!