Coming soon.

[JWH_Matthew]

Unfortunatelly you don't think of logo out the web... you don't think how the logo will look on a press advert or fax letter, or brochures, or reversed out of a black background.

Try to realize such "web 2.0" logo with shadows, outlines and other crap and then scale it down to see if the text is still legible and logo is recognisable. Result = fail.

Well, why do you assume I know nothing about designing ?
But if we are starting to talk about corporate identity and overall DTP, did anyone mention about printing anything at this stage ? Are you serious with things you are talking about ?

Well, if you have the skills, knowledge, along with lots of free time, and dare to create whole corp. identity for get simple project, I strongly encourage you to do this.

But when you come up with personal arguments, I consider polite conversation as finished.
Anyway I didn't came here to argue with anyone just for sake of arguing.


On topic: I'll try to mess with current getsimple logo as soon as I find some free time.
I realized that getsimple's abbreviation I have shown, could be used as favicon.

I do like your abbreviation to be used as a favicon if you would supply me with that file that would be great.

I am not looking to start a fight, you both provide good points on which logo is better. I personally enjoy the
web 2.0 logo minus the drop shadows due to the possibilities of needing to re-size and print. I am not sure what
else would be wrong with a web 2.0 logo type other than the drop shadow causing issues.