Internet Explorer Logo Changes: Evaluating the New Design
Assess Internet Explorer logo changes, what the familiar mark is, how vector construction affects use, and what a “new” design implies for artwork and rights.
Contents
What this logo question is actually about
The subject is the Internet Explorer (IE) brand mark: the lowercase “e” with an orbital ring that identified Microsoft’s older browser for many years, and any later treatment people now treat as a “new” Internet Explorer logo. For vector-logo work, that means judging which artwork is under discussion, whether it is true vector construction or only a preview, and what you may legally do with it.
There is a gap in the supplied coverage: it does not identify a single official Microsoft file, date, designer, or construction drawing for a current “new Internet Explorer logo.” Internet Explorer as a shipping browser was retired, and Microsoft’s current browser brand is Edge, which uses a different mark. A search for a new IE logo therefore usually lands on one of three things: a historical refresh of the classic “e” and ring, a fan or concept redesign circulating as if it were official, or the Edge successor identity mistaken for a renamed IE logo. Treat those as separate assets until authorship is documented.
How the familiar mark is built, and what “new” usually changes
The long-running IE identity is a simple two-part lockup: a single letterform and a tilted ring that crosses the letter. That structure is why the mark survived so many product versions. A lowercase “e” is a closed, readable shape at small sizes; a ring can be drawn as a true ellipse, a stroked path, or a compound outline. In vector terms those are different constructions. An outlined ring keeps thickness when scaled and converted to other tools; a live stroke can look correct on screen and still break when someone expands, offsets, or cuts the file for print or embroidery.
The usual reading of the ring as a globe, orbit, or “window on the web” is interpretation. The supplied coverage does not include Microsoft design briefs, named authorship, or dated construction notes for each generation of the mark, so claims about original intent, exact launch years, or a designer of record cannot be stated here as documented fact.
When people call a version “new,” they are usually changing one of a few visual variables: the weight and counter of the “e,” the tilt and thickness of the ring, the blue and gold color pairing, the presence of gloss or a Windows-era sheen, or the switch from a flat geometric lockup to a more dimensional or simplified successor. Those are design choices, not proof that the file is editable vector artwork. A glossy or photographic treatment is often a raster rendering sitting on top of, or instead of, paths.
What to inspect in a vector file before you rely on it
Filename and extension do not prove that you have editable vector paths. An SVG, EPS, PDF, or AI container can hold a placed bitmap of the “e,” a tracing with thousands of noisy nodes, or live type that will substitute if the original font is missing. For this mark, the practical test is whether the letter and the ring are separate, clean outlines you can select, recolor, and scale without pixel edges.
- Confirm the “e” is outlined paths, not a raster image in a clipping mask.
- Confirm the ring is a geometric ellipse or a simple compound path, not a auto-traced halo.
- Check that overlapping areas of letter and ring are intentional Boolean shapes, not flattened pixels.
- Look for extra effects (glow, bevel, drop shadow) that exist only as raster appearances.
- Note whether colors are solid swatches or blended pixels; the classic pairing is a blue letter with a warmer gold ring, but exact values are not supplied here.
- Reject “vector” packs that only include PNG, JPEG, or ICO previews of the logo.
| Check | Why it matters for this logo |
| True outlines vs embedded bitmap | The ring and counters of the “e” fall apart at large sizes if they are pixels. |
| Node count on the ring | A true ellipse has few anchors; a trace of a screenshot is noisy and hard to edit. |
| Stroke vs expanded outline | Stroke width can fail in cut, vinyl, and some print workflows. |
| Live font vs converted letter | If the “e” is still type, another machine may redraw it. |
| Color as swatches vs effects | Glossy “new” versions often hide the geometry under raster styling. |
| Official vs concept lockup | A redesigned IE mark may be fan art even when it looks finished. |
Practical implications for use, editing, and delivery
Permission to view or download a logo is not permission to modify it, combine it with other marks, or use the artwork, any accompanying type, or the Internet Explorer name in a product, site, or merchandise. Microsoft’s browser names and logos are trademarks. Editorial or historical discussion of how the mark looks is a different activity from shipping the artwork as your own identity or implying a current Microsoft product relationship that no longer exists.
If the task is to evaluate a proposed new design rather than to reuse the official mark, judge it as vector-ready identity work. The letter should stay a single, even-weight “e” with an open counter that does not clog at favicon size. The ring should keep a consistent thickness as it passes in front of and behind the letter; that overlap is the lockup’s main construction problem and should be solved with path geometry, not with a fade or a bitmap. Flat, limited color will travel across print, screen, and small UI better than the older glossy treatments. A successor-style redesign that drops the ring entirely is a different brand, closer to how later Microsoft browser identity moved away from the IE lockup.
Deliverables should separate master artwork from previews. A useful master is outlined paths, documented spot or process colors, and a clear statement of what may be recolored. PNG or other raster exports are proofs, not the logo. If you only have a screenshot of a “new” IE mark, you do not yet have vector artwork; tracing that screenshot will copy its errors and still will not grant rights to the underlying identity.
A new-looking Internet Explorer mark is only as useful as its path construction and its rights. Clean geometry does not make an unofficial redesign official, and an official-looking file is not automatically editable or licensed for reuse.