I don't understand. Is the WMV compressed video (at 1-1.5 hours per gig) better looking than the _uncompressed_ mac video at 6 minutes per gig? This makes no sense, since the uncompressed video is straight off the tape.

Windows better than Mac for digital video? Riiight. And I have a bridge to sell you.

"For example, you can store 1 to 1.5 hours of full-resolution (720 x 480) WMV 9 video in just a gigabyte of hard disk space. With the Mac, you can store only 6 minutes of full-resolution digital video per gigabyte."

For the record, you are comparing compressed video on windows to raw DV footage. When all is said and done, depending on how you chose to export the file, it is much smaller. As for putting it back out to dvd, I would personally prefer not going through a compression/decompression cycle before writing it to disk.

As a long-time video professional, I can say that this story is utter crap. I have worked with both platforms in a number of different software packages, and I can assure you that video editing on a Windows based system is far from "state of the art". As far as compression technology goes, there is a law of diminishing returns... Video can only be compressed so far before information is lost forever. While this may be acceptable for hobbyists and the sight impaired, it is not acceptable for people attempting to create quality product. With all of its DRM and DMCA "features", Windows is unlikely to ever be the best tool for the job. Want to edit video? Buy a Mac.

What planet has this author been living on? Windows Media 9 was universally panned after it's release, even by the staunchest Microsoft suporters for it's crippling anti copying features until Microsoft did some back fast pedaling, and changed things. Movie maker 2, well that just about says it all in it's name, version 2. The original version was a horrid attempt to copy Apple's excellent iMovie software, and the second iteration still pales by comparison. "(WinXP)has always been the superior system for digital photos and music." What the hell? If that isn't the most absurd statement I've ever seen concerning imaging and audio capabilities I'll eat a cow. I defy you to find anyone anywhere in the graphics or audio industries that will concur with that statement (with the possible exception of Microsoft). With all the smoke that this article is blowing, I have to suspect that someone was really inhaling. Oh wait. For a second I thought the author was serious. Now I get it. Good one.

How could you say that it's pulled ahead when the software isn't even released yet? I think we have some wish full thinking here. What does Windows have that even close to Final Cut Pro?

I have never seen a successful home movie DVD made on a PC- I have made hundreds on my MAC - My friend is a senior windows executive at Microsoft and says they are 2 years behind in video editing / DVD burning for the consumer.

Windows Media 9 Series works on Windows right? MPEG 4 standard works on all computers so MPEG is better. Windows Movie Maker 2 works on Windows right? iMovie works on a Mac right? Windows Video Editing Pulls Ahead of the Mac??? Any film directors or surveys saying that is true? Only Paul Thurrott saying it is true. Why should I believe him, when there are many programs and cameras out there to make a film on which is better than Windows.

please re-evaluate you assessment of these two media platforms- it seems that you have not spent any significant amount of time with iMovie. a couple of comments:

-the ONLY "advantage" that the windows version has over iMovie is the ability to import from analog and in different formats (which only adds to the complexity in my opinion) -the windows version is still beta- iMovie is due for an update any time now. compare them again when each version is released as final.

as far as the number of transitions, etc, the windows version includes variations of the SAME effects, and counts them as extra. iMovie allows you to edit (eg timing, speed, and direction) of effects, which would count as an extra effect in the windows version. for example, the windows version counts 6 effects for "slide" (up, down, across, etc). the same or similar effect in iMovie is listed as a single effect, but you have the ability to choose which direction you want it to slide, and how quickly. if you separated these capabilities, you would quickly add 5 effects to the total iMovie list. there are inconsistencies like this all throughout your comparison.

as far as ease of use and power- i just spent 8 hours with the windows beta, and i can confidently say that iMovie is both more powerful and easier to use. the wizards are obtrusive, and many times leave you in a state of confusion, or lost in the middle of your movie-making experience. the interface is inconsistent- if you choose to "automate" a task, it leaves the default list area, or function area (on the left) completely, and presents a new list, without leaving an obvious way to get back to your main board. the further you get into the wizards, the more lost you become. there are many examples of this.

iMovie always makes you aware of where you stand- whether your editing audio, video, importing, etc. if i want to edit audio, the video timeline is only a click away and in good view. if i want to import more footage, the camera button is in good view and ALWAYS visible. etc, etc.

maybe much of this is opinion based, but i suggest you take another peek at the two programs, and perhaps be a little more open minded.

Since when has full resolution video been 720 by 480. You obviously have no idea what your talking about. Full resolution video at least for TV screens and computers on this planet is 640 by 480. This shows that you are a complete novice in DV and are hardly able to make any good judgement on what is or is not a good DV editing interface.

Windows Video Editing Pulls Ahead of the Mac? There are many other programs and cameras that you can make a film on, which are better than Windows. Try Adobe Premiere and Apple Final Cut Pro. Why should I stick to Windows when they pirate programs from others.

Wow, Windows Video Editing ahead of the Mac? I guess stability and ease of use don't come into this equation. And to say that Music has been behind windows for some time. I guess all of my pro music friends must be useing the wrong platform. I have to get them to do some 'switch' commercials to move all there music and video stuff to XP. You are joking aren't you?

I'm not sure where you got your data, but the PC has not always been better in the areas of photo work OR audio editing. In fact, it is still not the preferred platform for either of these task by professionals, which is the true measure of a systems overall performance, productivity, and return on investment!

A couple of points are misleading. Regarding the size of the video files. It is true that on the Mac DV is imported at about 5 minutes per gigabyte. This is the DV standard. If you want a smaller file you can compress it. To say that the compressed files in windows (about 60 minutes per gigabyte) have the same content as pure DV is just wrong. That is like saying that the high resolution jpeg picture from a camera is the same as one compressed 10x smaller.

Second, there is some marketing BS from MS going on about supporting both analog and digital video. Any video in your computer is digital. To get it there you need a digitizer (Dazzle or Formac Studio for example). Using this either platform can use any kind of video.

"Windows XP has finally pulled well ahead of the Mac in digital-video capabilities and has always been the superior system for digital photos and music."

Sez freaking who? ALWAYS been the superior system for digital photos and music? You've got to be kidding!

Mac systems are still light years ahead of Windows solutions. What are you smoking exactly? How about PC's have NEVER been ahead of the Mac in this area? What kind of blind moron writes such self-serving innacurate tripe? This isn't another of those planted Microsoft deals is it because it can't be an objective journalist who's actually knowledgeable of Macs and PC features in the last couple of years.

iMovie2 is still superior in most ways to Windows Movie Maker (with a more improved iMovie 3 on the way) and last time I checked Windows had no iDVD, iTunes or iPhoto software. Nor do they make a superior mp3 device known as the iPod. Get real. Windows has a long ways to go to catch up with the Mac complete digital hub software solution. PC's superior my posterior!

I am so sick of deceptive, inept, plain wrong reporting! Go back to working at McDonald's. (By the way I own PC's and Macs and at least I know the difference, too bad Paul Thurrott doesn't. Please use writers that do.)

Are you kidding? What about the fact that windows media player uses proprietary codecs so that you can't play their files on any other machines? C'mon, get with the program, windows will never be as good as the mac for video or photo editing until they stop ignoring industry standards and give people what they want. By the way, can I have a chunk of the change that microsoft paid you to write this article?

Is that 1 to 1.5 hours of uncompressed or compressed full screen video? I'm curious about that 6 minutes per gigabyte on the Mac. How then do they manage to get 90 minutes of footage onto a 4.75 gigabyte dvd? Or does this require a completely different process?

Dear Paul, You do your readers a disservice with statements such as... " (Windows)has always been the superior system for digital photos and music."It is obvious from your use of an "absolute" that it was motivated by bias rather than experience.

Two words:

Colorsync Final Cut Pro.

Nuff said

Windows Video Editing pulls ahead? Your talking about BETA sofware. I would at least wait to see how it performs in real world situation before you pass judgement. I have edited video on Windows XP (using Premiere) and folks, it's not pretty. Right now, the Mac is waaaay ahead of Windows in video editing, especially for home users, using the free iMovie program. FWIW, my trade is video editing, and I have taught it at a major university.

Please make your homework - never.. I repeat never.. in the last years I saw such an incredible nonsense.

>>For example, you can store 1 to 1.5 hours of full-resolution (720 x 480) WMV 9 video in just a gigabyte of hard disk space. With the Mac, you can store only 6 minutes of full-resolution digital video per gigabyte >> I stopped there cause I couldn`t believe my eyes...

Obviously another Apple hater. He recommends PC's for everything, including home use and photo use over a Mac? Fine. Every single photo retoucher I know in NY works on a Mac, they wouldn't even consider a PC! I've been in the retouching field for 15 years and I've worked in many many companies and all of them use Macs exclusively in the graphics department. As for video, most pros still use macs over PC's. I freelance After effects and the majority of the shops prefer Macs for video. As for iMovie, it uses DDV streams, right out of the camcoder. With the same DV codec, there is NO GENERATION LOSS! I haven't seen this new micro$oft codec, which sounds very useful indeed, but I'm sure there is artifacting being introduced. Hopefully Apple will release a similar codec soon for consumer use. The best part of this article was the bit about MicroSoft Research and there automatic A.I. based magic filter, that watches your raw footage, and picks out the important scenes and edits a complete finished movie! That's MicroSoft for you! Next they will make a bot program that plays Quake for you so you don't have to loose!

I'm curious to see if the author will post this email at all or edit it first, as I was informed all posts are "reviewed" for up to a day. /Bill Costello

Do you know that in your article you wrote the Word "Windows" 28 times!? That word makes you feel good doesn't it? When you wake up in the morning you chant "Windows, Windows, Windows" to get you up and going like most people's cup of coffee.

My suggestion to you? Buy a Mac and actually EXPERIENCE how cool they are. You sound like the obsessive type...who knows maybe one morning you'll be chanting "Apple, Apple, Apple."

I know you magazine is probably heavily funded by Microsoft advertising, and therefore you feel indebted to support their technologies (to keep the money coming in), but leave the bias at home please.

Darren

***I'm actually the opposite to you...the only thing I suggest people buy PC's for are games!!!***

it is a sad day indeed when an inferior operating system like windows pulls ahead of the mas os in the creative department--but it won't happen. At least not until windows loses it's cold clonelike feel. windows is ok for business applications and data entry. however in the world of the creative mind, the mac reigns supreme, as it should. I am a designer and student, I have worked with both windows os and mac os--the mac clearly lends itself to creativity and efficiency whereas windows is cumbersome and not at all fun to use--i look forward to using my mac--i was always dreading using the pc w/ windows--it was just too generic, it was without a soul--put simply it was boring and highly untrustworthy--since I've been using os x last year i have yet to crash--unfortunately the pc downstairs is on a crash-a-day routine.

why you say that this puts XP ahead of the Mac's video software is beyond me- it seems that MS has just barely caught up to where the mac was a few years ago. I mean, these products are definitely better than what MS had before, but it's pretty hard NOT to be better than horrible. Also, your article doesn't compare the windows software to the mac software anywhere but in the title. If this software has pulled ahead of the mac, why not TELL us how that is true? I really like the part where you say that windows has always been the better OS for digital pictures and music. Ummmmmm RIGHT! thanks for thowing that out there with no support at all, it's really very convincing! I mean, that statement couldn't be more wrong! Those are some of the things people specifically use macs for . . . I mean, I have a windows XP machine at home, and a mac running OSX. The XP machine gets used for games . . . .and that's IT. I can't imagine WHY you'd want to put yourself through using a windows machine for photos or music at all. And you didn't tell me, which is what I was hoping to get out of this article. IF windows is really better, tell me why. Don't just list off some features that are available on the Mac as well and expect me to switch to windows. Give me an actual comparison! Give me something useful! This article is not. I'm really not even sure why you mentioned the mac at all, xcept as a way to troll for page hits, since your article doesn't talk about Mac software at all . . . . . Meanwhile, millions of mac users are happily doing everything you talk about in their free copies of imovie2, and burning their movies to dvds with their free copies of iDVD . . . .

You obviously haven't spent any "quality time" with either itunes, or imovie, or idvd,.....'cause you're flat out wrong. Give these apps a whirl on a mac, and I'm positive you'll change your mind about who's the "superior" platform.

Windows XP has finally pulled well ahead of the Mac in digital-video capabilities and has always been the superior system for digital photos and music

What universe do you live in? Have you seen iPhoto or iTunes?

I really wish I knew where to begin! LOL But why bother heh? I'm very happy you're now able to edit video on your PC. LOL You've choosen to ignore quite a bit so I'm sure you'd ignore anything I post. Have fun!

Your article is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.

Also, it is misleading to state your opinion as a fact, but you know that, that's why you did it... to mislead your readers, since the facts do not support your argument.

The mac is still the defacto standard for digital video editing, and even Microsoft's copies of superior Apple products will not change that.

The Detroit Free Press put it into perspective by saying: “The new OS X for Mac runs circles around Windows XP, booting up faster, recognizing digital devices easier, burning CDs better and playing digital music and video cleaner. Mac’s iMovie video editing feature is simply astounding and so simple that it makes the Windows XP video editor look clumsy and complicated...”

I would suggest that the author check for bumps on his head; he must have taken a severe fall. This sounds like the fake switch ad that microsoft pulled last month. Windows products are ok if you like shaking hands with a tar baby.

6 minutes consume a GB...same or better resolution with WM 9?

No way.

what are you smoking? must be good, since you're suggesting that i base my work on beta or new technology that hardly anyone certifies, let alone supports. we use windows boxes, but won't move to that platform for our multimedia producers. our macs are paid for and we're getting top buck for our work.

As a professional videographer with some major films to my credit, I can say with great certainty that Windows remains the inferior platform for video. These new technologies, frankly, do not hold a candle to the ease of use and superior programs available on the Mac. I know of no reputable filmmaker who disagrees.

haha ha ha ha ha, whew, ha ha your killin' me, hehe haha, oh i can't take it, i have a cramp in my side i'm laughi-haha-in' so hard ...whew

well, i dont have access to an XP comp but anybody telling me that full-res WMV compressed to 1.5hrs/gb looks the same as full-res DV (=6min/gb) on the mac (or any comp) must be either blind or completely out of his mind. i suggest you have a look at the films made in this manner at a decent television set (if you somehow manage to get it back to tape) sincerely

Is this supposed to be an objective piece of writing? Maybe it isn't, but if it's advertising please say so. I get the feeling that using Windows MovieMaker 2 (great name!) probably is like reading this 'article': time-consuming and tedious. Although I could be wrong.

OK. That is about the.... Um ... Well Just plain stupid. Movie Maker for Dummies and lower. Yup. Just a little biased.

My simple response:

It's so nice you can get excited over almost having software attempting to copy something Macintosh users have been using for 2 years. Hopefully it will be a fraction as easy to use. Hopefully it will be as stable.

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- apple's is free</SPAN> "an inexpensive third-party release I'll discuss in the next issue of Connected Home EXPRESS brings elegant, beautiful DVD movie-making capabilities to XP as well."<BR> - sorry, but Apple still offers iDVD for free.</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- and what codec would that be?</SPAN> "Thanks to new compression capabilities, you can now rip CD audio and create home movies that take up far less space than is possible on a Mac."</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- apples and oranges</SPAN> "For example, you can store 1 to 1.5 hours of full-resolution (720 x 480) WMV 9 video in just a gigabyte of hard disk space. With the Mac, you can store only 6 minutes of full-resolution digital video per gigabyte."<BR> - comparing optimized, compressed video to uncompressed video is no comparison. compression is available on both platforms</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- can't do it?</SPAN> "You can't do so on the Mac because its underlying video technology doesn't offer low bit-rate, high-quality encoding at native resolutions."<BR> - are you saying that since Apple didn't ship the codec you want for free that it can't be done?</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- "average users (i.e., most people)"</SPAN> "Microsoft has found that consumers have good intentions when it comes to home video, but the reality is that editing video is difficult and overly time-consuming (and this has been my experience as well). For average users (i.e., most people), Windows Movie Maker 2 will automate literally every step of the video-editing process. "<BR> - so, basically, we are all idiots that need MS to think for us. apparently we don't even know what average users are: "average users (i.e., most people)".<BR></P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- wizard or slog?</SPAN> "Windows Movie Maker 2 will automate literally every step of the video-editing process. More advanced users can tweak those results or simply choose to manually slog through the entire process."<BR> - so i can either accept canned, corny themes or "slog" through the program the normal (i.e. not for most people) way.</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- Best statement yet</SPAN> "Unlike iMovie, Windows Movie Maker 2 supports analog and digital video, so any video (or audio) source you can connect to your PC is automatically supported."<BR> - yeah, good luck with that one. first you have to buy a firewire card, install it, make it work in XP (laugh). then you have to either use the cheap inputs that came with the box or BUY another card for decent audio and analog video inputs. this free beta software wure is getting expensive.</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- Huh? why?</SPAN> "After you import the video, Windows Movie Maker 2 splits it into clips and creates a collection, as before."<BR> - why would i select the video clip i want to import and then have it split into smaller clips?</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- More canning going on</SPAN> "Instead of looking at the manual process, let's look at Windows Movie Maker 2's exciting new AutoMovie feature, which uses Microsoft Research technology to analyze your video clips and create a professionally edited movie that includes the best parts of each scene you selected."<BR> - the normal (i.e. not for most users or your machine will get the blue screen of death) way of doing it is too long and too complex to explain, so let's look at your video the Redmond way. we'll tell you what the best parts of your video are. our research knows better than you do.</P>

<P><SPAN CLASS=subhead>- They'll never know it was a switcher ad...</SPAN> "Windows Movie Maker 2 includes more than 130 new professional-looking, high-quality effects, titles, and transitions (compared with just one in Windows Movie Maker 1 and about 27 in iMovie)."<BR> - with 130+ effects, titles, and transitions you can effectively create your own ads that mimic your competitor without anyone knowing they are really just our canned materials. seriously. 130+. that's pretty good. kudos on that one. you made a point that is valid. good thing we're not keeping score...</P>

Sounds more like an infomercial for Windows Media/Video than an actual product comparison. I read absolutely nothing about the Apple products and how they work.

You probably believe in Fairy dust, too.

It took me 1 day to install a standard Plug-and-Play Firewirecard into my brandnew PC and transfer some video from my camcorder. I gave up trying to get WindowsXP to recognize my Digital Camera. On my Mac the thought didn't even occur to me that it might not work. Whether stuff works on the PC is always some kind of a gamble. Sometimes it works out of the box, sometimes you have to fiddle with it for hours. I personally don't want to waste my time with that. I study computer science btw.

Hi There!

Nice try, but I've tried this new stuff from MicroCrap and it is still just crap. If Mickeysoft want to do something they should try coming up with an original idea and leave the innovation to Apple.

You just can't steal everything all the time and steal it well.

Microstupid should stick with what it does best, generic things for idiots that do not know the difference between professional grade and no grade at all.

Yeah, I'm sure George Lucas and ILM uses PCs to do their movies.

Quote: With Microsoft's recent digital-media-related releases such as the Windows Media 9 Series and Windows Movie Maker 2, Windows XP has finally pulled well ahead of the Mac in digital-video capabilities and has always been the superior system for digital photos and music. Unquote

Are you drunk? Have you been toking? Kindly explain to me why Apple and Macs have owned publishing (digital photography). Why do so many music studios use Macs for editing and production (digital music)? Why are companies like CNN using TiBooks loaded with FinalCut Pro for in the field editing (digital movies)? Why are you espousing a closed albeit fine system such as Windows Media that severely limits what you can and cannot do with your own material?

ConnectedHome should be entitled "Micro$hill" or "Micro$erf" for printing this blatant propoganda

I don't use Windows machines. Could you please post some screen captures of Movie Maker's U.I.. I'm not going to buy a windows machine just to see what the software is like.

You forgot to add, "This article was brought to you by the nice folks at Microsoft."

Is this an ad ? Just the way that the piece is worded says "marketing". Really it can be made less blatent. My bias ? I make money repairing HPs and Dells by day, then come home and use Macs.

Oddly, it seems like you may have never used iMovie before, and you might not have read some of the requirements for Movie Maker 2. I say this because your column appears to be well written, but is nothing short of wrong in several aspects.

First off your statement that Movie Maker supports all sorts of video and analog, unlike iMovie. Exactly what do you mean there? I import all kinds of video and audio into iMovie all the time, including ANALOG audio and video from my vcr. Oh yah, and it is automatically supported, too. This is one of the things that confuses me...it seems like you just read a review of iMovie and have never actually used it.

Let's not get into transitions and whatnot (there are literally hundreds available for iMovie) and talk about connectivity...Movie Maker requires either firewire (which EVERY mac has already) or analog to DV converter hardware (which is what I used to bring in analog signals to iMovie). So...what's the diff? PC users will likely have to add hardware to their machine if they want true DV signals (BOTH automatically supported by Movie Maker and iMovie) and both PC and Mac users will have to add Analog equipment if they want that...again, both automatically supported.

At best it looks like Movie Maker might be a passing equal to iMovie, but better? Come on. And incidentally how long has iMovie been out? It takes MS that long to copy a good concept? Sheesh. Give me iMovie.

How can you compare shipping product to beta/unfinished software?

Smells like FUD to me: Don't buy XYZ because Microsoft's next release will be better than XYZ.

If you truly want a change your life experience use a Mac. This article is so full of lies and deception it can only come directly from Microsoft’s marketing department.

I rate this article PURE PROPAGANDA!

Dude, tell me why windows has always been the superior system for digital photos and music.

What have YOU been smoking? One would think you've never even used Movie Maker 1 OR 2. I am a windows user and a filmmaker and all I can say is you have never used a Mac.

John Roberts -

Paul, Your critique is so full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the state of video editing on these two platforms, that it reads like a Microsoft press release. Are you going to follow up this tour de farce with an earnest piece on how Microsoft Publisher is ready to take over the high-end publishing market. Ah - well I guess you gotta please the advertisers though. Ya - that must have been it...

This is a joke right? The Windows app doesn't even come close to iMovie in terms of ease of use and quality. Have you actually used iMovie, or just seen screen dumps?

You are absolutely wrong, I have recompressed PAL DV inot sorenson and mpeg 4 and it takes up remrkably less. Prove what you say and tell me what mac codec you were using (RAW media 100?).

I don't think you know very much about video!

For starters 720x480 is not a standard size for any video footage and the WMV is in no way comparable to industry standard DV which you discuss on the Mac. A better comparison would be exporting the DV from iMovie to a quicktime file which would be approxiamtely the same size as the WMV file at the same footage length.

As you have shown little understanding of the basics of video editing, I find it hard to agree with your general assumptions.

This article is BS! They don't know what their talking about.

Very nice, Bash the mac, when you have no clue about it, go take a look at apple.com first, MS is trying to copy,iphoto, imovie, itunes....

The author loses me when he says that XP has "always been the superior system for digital photos and music."

Hell, even PC Magazine's pundits have written that they think nothing in the PC world beats the elegance and usability of iPhoto. And for music? Not a chance.

Is Windows better for music by virtue of using Microsoft's own proprietary encoding system (WMA) instead of MP3? I don't think so.

And now they're coming out with their own digital video format (WMV). Is this progress? For the Borg, maybe. Not for us humans.

So... Macs can only store six minutes of video per GB? *snigger* Oh, and WMV9 has better quality (both video and audio, I presume) than this, only it allows 90 minutes of video per GB? Yeah. Sure. Maybe if you enjoy video artifacts and tin-can audio. However, I applaud any video editing suite that supports analog video. That -must- be a first for any computer. And here I thought that the very nature of computers required that data was stored in digital format. Nice article, Paul! Unbiased and factual, just the way we like'em.

In the article, it said: " Thanks to new compression capabilities, you can now rip CD audio and create home movies that take up far less space than is possible on a Mac. For example, you can store 1 to 1.5 hours of full-resolution (720 x 480) WMV 9 video in just a gigabyte of hard disk space. With the Mac, you can store only 6 minutes of full-resolution digital video per gigabyte. And WMV 9's quality is as good or better than what you see on the Mac."

This is utter BS. The Mac can also utilize compression as well as handle analog video and audio sources by utilizing an A/V card. JUST LIKE THE PC. However, on the Mac, it usually looks better.

This is another 'Apple is irrelevant' article but insidiously masquerading as a 'honest advice' piece. The odd mix of slamming one product while cosily discussing its competition's causes me to wonder if in fact Apple's switch campaign is resonating with potential 'connected home' consumers more than some would like.

wow, i never could have thought i'd read a more unprofessional and uninformed article in my life. Have you ever even used a mac before?

ummm Apple made the iTunes for Windows XP. Macs only make up 3% of the computing world whilst PC's make up the guess what... 97% PC's. And dont tell me I havent used iPhoto or iTunes. (I have it by the way). XP has photo and music management BUILT IN.

check this site out for credible PROOF!! http://videobuyersguide.com/software/iMovie_vs_MovieMaker.html

Great article, forget what applet idiots tell you here. We, window users don't care about Apple, though I personally enjoy so many idiots making an ass out of themselves. Apple should stop claiming to innovate, those days past long time ago, Microsoft is the innovator now, and Apple has to catch up with Microsoft, though probably it is going to give up. Whenever a company attracts so many losers, like the ones here, that's really bad news for that company. It looks like more and more losers with free time try to attack others on the net about apple, which indicates that apple is really doomed. Music business and ipod is a good indicator for this, they are going out of that business slowly.

Your Comments (required):

I am a film and video professional, educator and musician. I only use macs for editing, compositing, graphics, animation and sound design work and would never dream of using inferior microsoft/wintel products.

Hey all. Well, i don't know about MovieMaker (when i tried it, i almost puked), but there's some stuff on the PC that I can't do with my Mac, apparently. Some effects along the lines of Canopus VideoFX are only available for Windows. Which is ticking me off because I don't like using Windows, it feels like talking to a monkey (yeah, yeah, spare me the pro-M$ bull). my question is, does MovieMaker2 include cheesy transitions with stuff flying in and out with pretty colours (again, Canopus VideoFX or Pinnacle Hollywood FX would be a perfect example)? whatever comes with iMovie and other video software on the Mac is too simple (i would dare to say "too classic", which I like, but clients come in all shapes and sizes). If MovieMaker has anything like that, or supports anything like that, I might have to check it out.... any help would be appreciated.

No way Mac Systems are inferior for Audio/Video. Check any professional re cording studio, they're MAC based. Go back to work and do a bit of research

The author of this column does not know what he is talking about.

For one, the author says the following:

"Unlike iMovie, Windows Movie Maker 2 supports analog and digital video, so any video (or audio) source you can connect to your PC is automatically supported."

Yet Microsoft says this:

"If you have an analog video camera or a VCR, you will need to have an analog video capture card."

Obviously, this is to convert the analog video to digital before you import to MovieMaker. Well, guess what, I have been converting analog-to-digital for years using iMovie for the Mac: you can use an analog video capture card, a camcorder that digitizes analog to digital video, or a analog/digital converter. iMovie supports them all with ease, so do your research first.

You talk about iMovie having only 27 effects, transitions and titles, but several hundreds are available for iMovie, many of them for free or very cheaply. And the good thing about the Mac vs. the PC is that Mac users do not have to worry if their machine has Firewire or not; it comes standard with all Macs. Most of them come with Firewire at 800 Mbps. This is not true for Windows machines (how behind-the-times Window machines are).

I have actually used MovieMaker and I hate it. iMovie is so much easier to use.

A user by the name of Daniel wrote about us "applet (sic) idiots". I can give a list of reasons why Macs are superior to Windows, but the list would too long to list here. You say that Microsoft is the innovator; yes, an innovator of viruses and security flaws that you cannot believe. You say that Apple has to catch up with Microsoft; have you tried Mac OS X? It is way more advanced than Windows XP, which is a lame excuse of an insecure operating system.

In any case, no way I would use Windows for nothing more than a calculator and some basic word processing, let alone video editing. Windows, simply, cannot handle the demands of professional video editor. Period.

I am a Windows user and I notice alot of you people saying that PC Video Editing is not even close to where MAC is. You are completely wrong. I must agree first off that Movie Maker 2 is crap unless you are making sex vids of your dorm room. The product that really excells on the PC Platform is Adobe Premiere 1.5. Nearly everything Final Cut can do, this program can do just as well. The only drawback is that you need to pay as much as what a nice G5 costs in parts to have a PC smokin enough to really take advantage of it. Another drawback is Adobe remade this version from the ground up so there is a very limited plugin supply. Give it a year and the film industry is going to have a large amount of competition with High School students busting out major productions on their home system with old Digital 8 camcorders. As much as I want a MAC, I just cannot justify paying money for the ridiculous look of them and only one mouse button???? I also see you guys dissing Windows on stability which is ridiculous because I never turn off my machine. I have been without a crash for over a year. Also, all Mac-OSX is, is a Unix rip-off which should be free if they are using that technology since UNIX is open-source. Right now, MAC is still the king for creativity but it is not on top by much. With Cakewalks new Sonar 4, we are looking at one of the best ever Digital Audio Workstation software titles to come to PC. It also includes video just like Steinberg's Nuendo. What's really funny is Adobe started on MAC and now they just stopped devoloping Premiere on the Mac. Now they have full concentration on Windows and do any of you really thing Adobe will fail? I know for sure 90% of you Mac users use Adobe Photoshop in conjuntion with Finale Cut. Why don't you guys stop arguing on these boards and start making some productions?

-PC till the day I die...

"Since when has full resolution video been 720 by 480. You obviously have no idea what your talking about. Full resolution video at least for TV screens and computers on this planet is 640 by 480. This shows that you are a complete novice in DV and are hardly able to make any good judgement on what is or is not a good DV editing interface."

Actually it is 720x480, its just that the aspect ratio is different. Macs are better.

What a n00b!!... please go back and play with your Windows Movie Maker...

Well I just want to touch on a few things here without attempting to start a PC vs MAC war.

Firstly as it has been stated, Mac's are king in Audio/video production on a professional level. However, if money is no object than macs will always win, but if your someone on a budget or "thrifty" the PC becomes a viable product.

It's cheaper to build a dual Xeon setup, ( NOtice i didn't say buy from dell or a third party vendor ) as opposed to a dual G5 mac, and have the same flexibility.

For the guy above that said Adobe no longer develops premiere on the mac, err i'd assume it was because Mac wanted to use its own software Final Cut Pro. Which they could afford to sell at any price to drive adobe out of the market, smart business move on macs' part. Premiere on the PC is not a bad software at all though it doesn't quite have that "PRO" feel to it just yet its very prosumer ready, with a host of plugins.

But, let's be realastic any of you who care to compare premiere pro to Final cut pro is just crazy, as if anything you'd be comparing it to AVID thats if you were serious on comparing them.

I had a chance to use windows movie maker, and i guess honestly for FREE software and to a normal jo blow it's enough to get the job done.

Now in the Audio department Windows OS's don't stack up, though im not saying Mac's are the best because I like Linux as well but any *inx based system will sound better,( By the way the comment on macs being built on unix is wrong, i believe there are built off free BSD ) but as for the amount of software on Windows and price, it makes it more appealing to users.

To be frank if you want to be a professional buy a mac, if you are a consumer / prosumer buy a PC untill you can afford a mac.

and if all else fails purchase Windowblinds and skin your pc to look like a mac :)

As an independent filmmaker, let me just say that any author that recommends compressed Windows Media over raw DV format shouldn't be writing reviews. You are, simply put, completely misinformed or utterly unqualified to offer an opinion to potential buyers.

hi ,this is me mahendra subba frm Nepal plz .......

steven luce, your "raw" dv format is compressed at ~5:1 when it's encoded... you know nothing about video editing.

While I may not completely agree with the entire video arguments. It's faster on a PC to edit video clips and string together a little show, iMovie has more features but it does take a little while longer to get everything to work.

although I have NO clue about audio, graphics ARE completely easier to work with on the PC format. Photoshop/Illustrator and the Corel Series of Products are first and foremost tuned for PCs. While many Graphic Artists may use Apple computers, that by no means makes it any better. Ask someone who is familiar with both formats which is faster to work in... look at apple's two button mouse.

at one point all formats become completely identical.

WOW! Listen to the mac-heads whine and gnash their teeth about your article.

I've made about 30 or so 15-20 minute movies with MM2 from clips shot with a little Sony digi-cam. I add titles, a little music, some transitions, and burn them to DVD on a laptop. They perform flawlessly on any DVD player I pop them in. My mac-head friends are AMAZED! Over and over I have to explain how easy it is. They think I am a liar. They claim I must have hired a "professional". They simply cannot comprehend how to do it with all their fancy mac-ware. I think they sucked in on a scam-sell from the mac-world crowd. Silly people...

Both the PC and Mac are great tools for creating video content. I am a video profesional and make my living exclusivly from video. From Adobe Premiere, to Final Cut, to Media 100, to Avid, to Pinnacle, to iMovie, to Windows Movie Maker, to Microsoft Producer, to Real Presenter, etc. They all have a place and a purpose. Each product offers some nice features the other products don't have. As for the Mac vs PC, pick a platform that you are familiar with. They will both do the job quite nicely. I have seen some AWESOME stuff come off of both platforms. Broadcast quality and consumer quality can both be achieve from both platforms. So pick a tool you like and get out their and get after it! PC's are however, in my opinion, more likely to be here tommorow however, but Apple certainly somehow seems to hang in there. (Albeit with Intel processors and a Unix OS)

Your Comments (required):

Honestly, with no bias working on mac for digital video/audio is the best. Alternatively if there is enough budget a customisted systems integragration of hardware and softare on a silicon graphics platform would take your creativity to infinity.

muvee autoproducer software on windows platform is good for home video and combining with other professional editing software is capable of reducing the time working on the time line of the professional software.

let windows be in its domiain...not the right choice for digital creativity.

Your Comments (required):

I've used both systems for pro vid/film editing and they are equal to a point. Macs are not "god" as so many film/graphic/artist students might have been brainwashed into believing. I prefer PC editing primarly because there is more vid software avialable and rendering times are faster on a PC. With a Mac you are limited to FCP or AVID for editing and thats about it, while with PC its an open market. Mac and Windows based systems are good for editing but PC's are so much better. Macs on the other hand look pretty and can add that nice decor touch to any editing suite..

Your Comments (required):

Your Comments (required):

Windows better than a Mac?????? It's a real pain to even attempt to edit a movie on Windows. It's so easy on a mac, a caveman could do it( no offense). And I guess "(Windows)has always been the superior system for digital photos and music" , if you like to dig in to C/file/picture/ect. to find a picture instead of having them all on iPhoto that is. And I'm sure that iPod is the #1 music player because iTunes is harder to use than WMP. Besides all that, I guess that professionals use macs to edit movies because they like to waste their time and make bad movies. But, if you ignore the ease of use and quality, I guess a PC is better.

Your Comments (required):

this is very good

Your Comments (required):

Hmm interesting comments. Weather mac or pc software is better though you mac users are missing the point. Weather wich software is better, you can buy high quality video editing software and still save money off of an over priced underpowred mac.

READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.