Comments on: Windows Live Movie Maker Due Later This Year. Top Feature Request: Windows XP Support

By: mark

mark — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:24:46 +0000

they need to not worry about bells and whistles as much as they need to make it work with mp4 files.

By: leading

leading — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:44:53 +0000

MS kept us ahead of time in computer operating system for all these years.

By: Mike Torres

Mike Torres — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:33:50 +0000

Brandon: there is and always has been an option for Windows XP users – Windows Movie Maker has been available for Windows XP since it launched in 2001. I mentioned that in my original post on Windows Live Wire and linked to the download site.

This post just played up the fact that Windows Live Movie Maker (a new product) won’t be. But XPs users have a great (free) solution today.

By: Brandon Mendelson

Brandon Mendelson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:57:04 +0000

This is balls to me. Too many people still use XP for their not to be some kind of offering that serves as a nice, free alternative to iMovie for PC Users who can’t afford to upgrade (not to mention, those who don’t want to.)

By: Andres Moran

Andres Moran — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:16:01 +0000

I’ve used Motionbox.com and found it compelling. Powerful technology, easy to use.

By: Avatar X

Avatar X — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:05:58 +0000

As much i would like to agree with you i can’t but i have found out how to make it run in XP.. but first you need to patch the installer and install several dependencies in xp and extra software for it to run.. not exactly straight forward but it does can run in xp and work perfectly.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:57:04 +0000

Can you recommend these “better” and “free” alternatives?

By: Lewis Buckley

Lewis Buckley — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:40:19 +0000

Thanks for clarifying it. I’m running 7 now, so was posting just from memory.

By: Lewis Buckley

Lewis Buckley — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:38:50 +0000

fair point

By: Mike Torres

Mike Torres — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:58:49 +0000

@Lewis: Windows Live Movie Maker does *not* “install over the top of” Windows Movie Maker on Windows Vista; they can be run side-by-side ever since the first beta.

Though the post from yesterday is really about the upcoming release(s) and not about the beta. As I mentioned, we’re definitely aware that the beta was limited and are working hard to really improve on it this year.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:44:37 +0000

its a beta. its not done yet.

By: Andy Channelle

Andy Channelle — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:33:12 +0000

“They should try to make a video editor like iMovie and not some almost useless one like WLMM.”

So speaks someone who’s not used iMovie 08/9.

By: Imran Hussain

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:50:45 +0000

I think most people complaining about Windows Live Movie Maker are correct. It’s just too basic for any good enough editing. They should try to make a video editor like iMovie and not some almost useless one like WLMM. I know many novice users who fire up WLMM to rotate videos, put PIP effects and use overlays ( even though they might not be able to name these fuctions/features correctly )

By: Imran Hussain

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:48:04 +0000

The reason they can’t port Windows Live Movie Maker is due to the usage of Scenic and Direct X advancements in Windows Vista and 7 that aren’t available at all in Windows XP. This is the same as applications made using some of Leopard’s new APIs wont work on Tiger. If the Movie Maker was based on just .NET, it would have been easily backported

By: Juan

Juan — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0000

Microsoft doesn’t innovate… don’t think so…
Microsoft is always trying to keep compatibility with old versions as much as possible. If they don’t, everybody says that they do wrong because users with old OS are left out. But if the keep compatibility then they don’t innovate… Not easy game.
The last 3, 4 years Microsoft is doing great things (innovating), at least for developers (I’m a developer). This may be caused because of new competitors (linux, Google, etc), which is good for the software market.
We need Googles, RIMs, Androids, etc… But we also need Microsoft delivering good products… They all have a place…
I don’t understand why TechCrunch is always saying Microsoft is doing bad… That’s a story that some people can buy but TechCrunch team members are suposed to be professionals with great knowledge in the software industry….

By: Lewis Buckley

Lewis Buckley — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:39:58 +0000

Windows Movie Maker is OK (included in Win. XP & Vista)
Windows Live Movie Maker is what were talking about here (downloadable from Windows Live), and it’s not OK. The fact it installs over the top of the standard Windows Movie Maker is particularly irritating.

By: m00b13s

m00b13s — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:27:23 +0000

i think some of you are a little harsh on WMM, it’s actually not that bad. obviously not for pros but i put together a really good retirement presentation together with it and found it really nice and easy to use. same goes for the new Photo Gallery which i prefer on balance to iPhoto, just wish microsoft would sort out lazy loading of graphics throughout win7 like icons popping into place when the start menu is ready and in photo gallery. i’d rather wait a little longer and have all graphics in view when i use stuff.

By: adorno

adorno — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:20:17 +0000

Gotta give them a reason to upgrade.

By: Sal Romano

Sal Romano — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:09:34 +0000

Sony Vegas is the way to go. I tried Live movie maker and was shocked at the limitations. Of course Sony Vegas is the opposite and has about 1 million settings and a steep learning curve.

By: Robin Wauters

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:00:35 +0000

Yes, of course, updated the wording, thanks.

By: Cinger

Cinger — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:00:32 +0000

Windows Movie Maker is good for video editing, as much as Paint is good for photo manipulation.

There are better, and still free, alternatives out there…

By: Typhoon

Typhoon — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:00:10 +0000

I use Movie Maker only for very little editing work. For rest work I use Adobe Premiere Pro.

http://www.smartbloggerz.com

By: Jono

Jono — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:55:20 +0000

You describe it as a ‘web application’. I wouldn’t call it that because it’s a standard Windows app. Isn’t a web application something that runs in a browser?

By: Robin Wauters

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:33:30 +0000

Exactly.

By: Reverse Cowgirl

Reverse Cowgirl — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:27:45 +0000

Dude, if they port everything to XP, who will buy Win 7?