# Movie Maker 2 VS iMovie 3



## jaredbkt (Jan 8, 2003)

I tried WMM2 on a friend's PC and here are my thoughts in comparison to iMovie 3... 

 * There are "Wizard" like guides that walk the user through many steps. The first time or so this can be fine, however, once you know what you are doing they really get in the way and slow you down. It's a long multi-step process just to change the color of text in a title. 

 * There are a few nice transitions in the application such as a very cool one that looks like glass shattering. However, you can't change ANY of the properties of how they act. Basically, you're stuck with the "canned" transitions and that's it. The same goes for video effects. 

 * Microsoft seems to have not understood what a transition is and what an effect is. They have fade-in and fade-out in the effects section. These are transitions, NOT effects. This can be confusing after a person learns more about video editing and begins to wonder why WMM has different names for things. 

 * Switching between the timeline and story-board view is jarring to say the least. The bottom section jumps around a bit when going between the different views and it's difficult to zoom in or out. 

 * You can not import QuickTime movies or MPEG 4 files. Nor can you save your finished product to any other format besides Windows Media. This means no DVD authoring from within the application. The only decent way to export your movie would be to a camera for VHS dubs. 

 * You can import still pictures and create a nice slide show. However, you can only zoom in or out of those photos. There is no panning and zooming "Ken Burns Effect" as in iMovie 3. 

 * There is only one track for audio. The second track is reserved for the sound from your video footage. You would not be able to do narration on video unless you want to do it over a silent backdrop. One audio track is a severe limitation in my opinion. 

 * And finally, when I exported my 28 second clip to a finished Windows Media File it took almost 90 seconds to complete the export. Not very impressive. 

 So there's my take on Windows Movie Maker. It's not terrible, it's just not as easy as iMovie, has far fewer features, takes longer to accomplish the same tasks, is very limiting in what you can do, and has a confusing interface during some processes (titles for example). Take a look at what the new iMovie 3 has to offer and it's very sad to see Windows Movie Maker. iMovie looks like a high end film studio compared to this latest attempt from Microsoft.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 9, 2003)

Thanks for the review!  I've been really curious about how iMovie 3 would stack up to WMM2.  You haven't used beta versions of iMovie 3 or anything have you?  You're just comparing it to your experience in iMovie 2 and the announced features for iMovie 3, correct?  You can only save to Windows Media Format, so no native DV editing?  Really?  You're losing quality at every turn?  Windows Media ain't lossless like DV, right?  Wow, that's not cool.

The one thing Windows Movie Maker definitely has over iMovie 3 is the ability to use Windows Media 9 format (although it would be really nice if it were an _ability_, and not a requirement, as you say).  From what I've seen, WM9 totally destroys MPEG-4 in terms of quality.  Skip over to http://www.codecshootout.com and compare the ISMA & QuickTime MPEG-4 clips against the same-rate WM9 clips (you'll have to find a Windows PC to play the WM9 clips) and I think you'll see what I mean.  WM9 looks like it would be awesome for home video archiving &etc.  Hopefully H.264 will come out very quickly for MPEG-4 and Apple will implement it right away.


----------



## n4cer (Jan 9, 2003)

jaredbkt 

This is the same thing you posted on ActiveWin. Some of your assumptions, such as lack of export formats other than WM and to camera, are wrong. WMM2 and 1.x can also export to DV-AVI.

And the "Ken Burns" effect can be done with Photo Story (part of the MS Plus! Digital Media Edition linked to in the other thread)

Please refer to this thread for a followup to your original post:

http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?ThreadIndex=16145&Group=Last


----------



## jaredbkt (Jan 9, 2003)

I know what and where I've posted. And the simple fact remains that you must jump between multiple apps in Windows to get the same thing you get in one app on the Mac.

For example, I'd have to edit my movie in Movie maker, go to the Plus! pack, make a slide show, savce it, export it, go back to Movie Maker, import it, add it to the time line. That's a whole lot of steps in MovieMaker. It takes much less and incorporates it right into your video in iMovie. No need for multiple apps.

Although MM can export to AVI, AVI is lower quality and does not play on every machine because of the way the codecs can be setup. AVI is a poor choice for a video file you care about.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 9, 2003)

Ummm...not positive on this because I've never thought to question it, but if I'm right DV-AVI should provide zero quality loss.  AVI is just the wrapper around the DV formatted data, in that case.  Just like for a DV-MOV file quicktime is the wrapper around the DV formatted data, and a .mov file can actually be encoded in sorenson 3, mpeg-4, mpeg-2, animation, etc.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 9, 2003)

n4cer, I read the other thread and I'd like to know -- other than your response to jaredbkt, what's your take on WMM 2?  I know iMovie 3 isn't out yet so I wouldn't think it's really time to make comparisons yet, but how about iMovie 2 vs. WMM 2?  Sounds like you've used both.


----------



## n4cer (Jan 9, 2003)

Actually, jeb1138, I've never used iMovie. I've seen it a few times, mainly in reviews, during MacWorld keynotes, and on Apple's site. And I've seen issues posted here and on other sites. My posts have mainly concerned MM2 clarifications.

Paul Thurrott addresses differences between MM2 and iMovie2 in his MM2 review that you can get to from his main page:

http://www.winsupersite.com/

Plus! DME is also covered there.


What I can say is that both programs have their merits. iMovie seems increasingly aimed towards prosumers, while MM still tries to cater to the average joe home user. There has been a large improvement in functionality and extensibility for MM2. Microsoft is now publicizing the fact that you can extend the effects and transitions over the ones offered by default, and they (and several third-parties) are producing effects packages.

I applaud Apple's move towards greater app integration. In many ways, these apps (iMovie and MM) are moving along the same path. 

Where I think that MS has a slight edge is mainly in the integration with the Windows Media Formats. Whether streaming, or archiving, or saving for use on portable players, or emailing, or, pretty soon, outputting to DVD/broadcasting, Windows Media has shown itself to be superior to other formats, including MP4. The quality to compression ratio, and the licensing mean lower costs for streaming, bandwidth savings, and greater space savings (fit more video at higher quality in the same or less space). Over time, these advantages will be more readily evident.


----------



## pcouture (Jan 13, 2003)

Folks, I appreciate a good debate, but please, when referring to so-called "reviews", let's stick with something with at least an ounce of journalistic credibility.

If Thurrot not on M$'s payroll, I got one piece of advice : stop stalking Bill Gates. You're not him and won't ever be as rich either. He's the Windows Evangelist or what??? 

His site is SSSSOOOOOO desperately trying to look like it's part of microsoft.com's main page, it's not even funny. His "article" reminds me of the 1994 Mac vs. Windows wars. The way he picks apart the other side's arguments...  
That's a Yawn with a capital Y.

Quite pathetic, frankly.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 13, 2003)

n4cer, thanks for your comments.  I agree with you that Windows Media 9 is superior and that Apple needs to get more competitive in this area.  Technology like WM9 makes home movie archiving & editing feasible for the average Joe at last!  Apple's gotta find a response quickly.

On the other hand, Apple does still have some time, because people who make fun home movies normally want to be able to show them other other people, and not just on their own home computer, and they _don't_ want to have to go through an extra conversion or real-time video transfer to have to do that.  They want to store it in the format they can play it with (e.g. DVD's or CD's) and take it with them to their grandparents house and play it on their TV for them.  That's just not possible yet with WM9.  If WM9 really does get big then I'm sure commercial DVD players will start being able to play WM9 media from CD's and DVD's and would be very useful.  However, WM9 just barely got out of beta and definitely isn't integrated in personal electronics yet.  As for Apple's prospects, H.264 is very near on the horizon, is a part of MPEG-4, and is said to be better than WM9.  

I really don't think iMovie is aimed at prosumers at all, and I think Apple has reemphasized this with FCP Express.  I've had many non-techie friends sit down to iMovie and hit the ground running, and they loved it.

And on the other, other hand...I'm sorry, but like pcouture I have absolutely no respect for that man.  I read his original articles, e.g.:
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/Visual/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27448

around a month ago and you can read a reply of mine posted on his site here:

http://www.connectedhomemag.com/Visual/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27448&Action=Comments

His articles are unbelievably biased, unfair, and misrepresentative, in my opinion.  I've read a lot of articles from PC users critical of the Mac, but they have almost always felt like they were being honest, that they were well informed, and I always felt that they were entitled to their opinion.  If this guy is informed, he's using his knowledge to twist the truth and if he's not informed he shouldn't be pretending to be the credible source his sites portray him as.  For example, head on over to http://www.codecshootout.com/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=24 to see how wrong and/or intentionally misleading he is about the exclusive glory and assured victory of WM9.  Sorry, I have a lot of respect for a lot of PC users (myself being one of them), but not for this guy.

And now that Movie Maker has finally left beta stage (it hadn't when he wrote his articles) and that iMovie 3 is being released next week, I'm really looking forward to hearing from some people who've tried both, especially amateurs, who are credible sources of information.  Unfortunately I don't have a Windows box capable of working with video, so I'll have to wait and listen.


----------



## Quicksilver (Jan 13, 2003)

Well id like to say that the average joe isnt as bumb as you think joe does like to take chances and joe is sick to death of programs that show you step by step like in WMM, Office, etc. It somtime makes a user feel like there being told there stupid, even though there not. 

Because windows already exists the way it does it could be devastating to them if they change something.

Basicly With iMovie it comes down to the simplicity eg: havent you ever seen a web site with jargon mess everywhere? whats your reaction? everybody knows blue is more calm than red. yet red is more aggressive and catchy but can over do it right?. i think joe see's MM as Red and because of this becomes angry and overwealmed with the user interface, it becomes a job joe hates and becomes very stressed at work. But when joe uses blue??? joe becomes calmed and relaxed like being on a holiday. its not a job its a lay back downing a few beers relaxing time at the beach. I think you know the rest.


----------



## n4cer (Jan 15, 2003)

I've been to codec shootout before, and compared the MP4 and WM9 videos they have there. I have done my own comparisons, and in both cases, WM9 has proven the better codec IMO.

The thread you linked to has one poster that basically says MP4 will win because it will have wide compatability, but I'm not so sure about this. Many devices already have WM support, especially portable digital media players, CD players, car and portable stereos, and other devices like the PocketPC. For many of these devices, a downloadable firmware update is all that is needed for WM9 support. For constant bit-rate audio files, no update is needed. Microsoft has secured WM9 support from many DVD/consumer electronics chipset manufacturers a year or so ago, and more have signed on recently. WM9 DVD players (as well as audio/video players, etc.) are expected this month. Some may currently be available, but I haven't closely monitored that.
From the start, however, MS built WM9 so you can use one format from creation, to editing/manipulation, to multiple forms of distribution -- from studio, to theater, to home or the web.

WM9 licensing is also more attractive. WM never had the streaming or content costs MP4 does. With WM9, MS has also opened the format up more so that WM9 can be implemented on non-MS Desktop OSes, instead of just the embedded space. So, not only does WM9 surpass MP4 in quality, it also surpasses it in cost savings (up to 50% less than MP4 for encoder and decoder, with lower pricing caps and a longer term).

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/create/licensing.aspx

Most likely, what will happen will be similar to what happened with current DVD players, audio players, etc. -- most supporting multiple formats, with some supporting one or the other.

I await H.264 for comparison, but one of the problems with it is that it is limited to higher powered devices. Many of the devices in the mobile space may not be able to handle the decoding process smoothly. Then, there's the need for new devices to support H.264, so that puts it further behind WM9 in availability. And there's the question of cost and licensing terms of that format.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

Yup, I agree with pretty much everything you said.    WM9 is definitely better than MP4 (as noted in my post on codecshootout.com) in terms of quality.  But I think it should be mentioned that that "one poster" is the site founder and administrator.  He's at least quite experienced and familiar with codecs and more credible than that PC guy (I speak not his name ), in my opinion.  But anyway, yes I agree with you pretty much all the way.  WM9, it is awesome and MS has a lot of clout.  However, and I think you would agree, the battle is far from over.  MPEG-4 stands a good chance of winning, or even of coexisting as an equal.  My beef with that PC guy in this case is that he unquestionably portrays WM9 as the clear-cut winner, which it is not, as well as saying that Apple has nowhere to go, which it does.  He distorts the truth extensively.

One of the guys involved in H.264, I read just the other day, was saying the H.264 takes about 4x the processing power of MPEG-2, which is really nothing for almost all consumer devices (that are good candidates for video tech).  I guess we'll see when it comes out.  The fact of the matter, though, is that WM9 devices _don't_ exist yet (are there any?), and in an environment with a lot of stationary mass (a _lot_ of people already have DVD players, video cameras, VCRs and more that simply won't work with WM9 ever and that they're not likely to replace soon, no matter how cool WM9 is) and especially in an economy in recession, Apple and MP4 have plenty of time to make their move and win still, and there _are_ MP4 devices on the market already.  Main point again:  we don't really know how well MP4 & H.264 will do in the market against WM9 yet, but somehow that PC guys does. 

MS can afford to (and really wants to) undercut the competition in this area, thus the attractive licensing terms.  However, standards-based products have beaten cheaper products before, and could easily do so again.  MS also has Microsoft-hate/mistrust working against it in pretty much everything it does.  Part of the undercutting has to go to pay for that.

In any case, MP4vWM9 is just _one_ example of how I think this guy could be of a lot more service to his readers by either researching or just plain being honest, whichever it is.  But I won't go on because I don't want to turn this into an all-out flame-that-PC-guy thread.  Just releasing a little steam.

I, for one, was really excited to hear about and see Windows Media 9.  It's awesome!  And MS's integration with MM2 & everything else is awesome too!  Mainly I like this because it will hopefully put the pressure on Apple to step up to the plate in the codec arena and get us similar products.  But I'm also glad because my parents are PC users and have been wanting to archive and play around with old home videos for a long time and WM9 finally makes this really feasible.  Here's to choices in the market and different strokes for different folks!


----------



## n4cer (Jan 15, 2003)

> The fact of the matter, though, is that WM9 devices don't exist yet (are there any?)



You can keep tabs on device support here
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/conselec.aspx

MS' current tally is over 200 devices, most currently available, others announced late last year and, more recently, at CES.

http://microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Jan03/01-09WMDevicesSupportPR.asp

WMA9 is backward-compatible with older Windows Media Audio compatible decoders, so you can play back new content on old players, operating systems, and electronic devices (CD/DVD Players, portable audio players, etc.).

Windows Media Video devices, other than mostly PocketPCs and some portable players are just becoming available. These currently include mostly DVD players and PVRs.



> Here's to choices in the market and different strokes for different folks!



I second that


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 15, 2003)

Sorry, what I meant was Windows Media _Video_ 9.  WM Audio devices and the fact that they are backwards compatible don't mean much to me because: 1)  MP3 compresses plenty for my (and I believe most people's) purely audio needs with today's storage options.  A good case where standards based technology has beaten out superior technology.  MP3 did get a boost, of course, from originally being free.  2)  The fact that WM Audio is backwards compatible doesn't make any difference for video devices, because WM Video isn't.  

Quoting from Microsoft Press Pass link:
"Among the new devices shown at CES is the *first* DVD player to support Windows Media Video, unveiled under the Polaroid Corp. label based on a reference design by Equator Technologies Inc." (emphasis added)

So one no-name (in the DVD market) WM9 Video-supporting player has been announced, and all the other DVD players mentioned (and practically all of those 200 devices) support WMA only, not WMV.   There are no "firmware upgrades" for those thousands and thousands of DVD & VHS players already in homes.  So I think I'm justified in saying that WM9 Video devices don't exist, that MS has to work uphill against current conditions to get a WM9 foothold in the consumer market, and that Apple & MP4 still have a good deal of time left. Not tons of time, but enough.  

Hopefully Apple & the MPEG-4 bunch won't take long to get their response out there, because with Microsoft making WM9 the default choice for WMM2, it might not be long before a lot of people have a lot of video in WM9 format and say "What?  That harddrive-based handheld portable video player can play all those video files I have on my computer?  And I can take it to the Grandparents and hook it up to their TV?  Cool!"  Now if Apple were to get to market first with a jaw-dropping right-priced iPod II video player...well...we might see a lot of people asking for an MPEG-4 codec.  

Cheers.


----------



## n4cer (Jan 15, 2003)

A few corrections:

MP3 was never free. This perception is largely due to the availability of MP3 encoders like LAME. LAME (and other encoders like it) are illegal. There have always been royalties and licensing for MP3 encoders/decoders. A german company, Fraunhoffer, developed the technology, and they receive licensing fees for it from legitimate encoder/decoder vendors. The availability of free encoders/decoders is another example of Open Source developers skirting around copyright/tradmark/patent laws.

HIGHMAT DVD players also support WMV. Panasonic, JVC, and others will have players supporting HIGHMAT in Q1.
http://microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Jan03/01-09HighMATMomentumPR.asp

There is also Pioneer's Digital Network products, 

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Jul02/07-15DigitaLibraryPR.asp

car A/V systems, and the Media PCs in more set-top-box like form facctors/notebook form factors.


Companies like Archos already beat Apple to the punch on Video-capable portable players.

The Archos, in particular, supports MP4 Video and MP3 audio.
http://www.archos.com/

Then, there is Microsoft's Media2Go initiative. These devices are expected to range from $199 to $399, and be available later this year.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/pmp/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/news/01-09Media2Go.asp

I don't expect there to be a clear winner, however, mainly due to political reasons. But I suspect either way you go, there will be support. Just like devices that embed WMA/MP3 now, they'll probably have WMV/MP4 added in the future. Even the M2GO devices will be multi-format compatible.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 17, 2003)

Some more corrections: 
Creating an MP3 player used to be explicitly free to the developer, as long as they provided it for free over the internet for personal use.  Then Thompson struck that provision from their licensing terms (compare the old (http://web.archive.org/web/20000818191854/www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html) terms to the curent (http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html)).  There was a somewhat misguided big deal made about this in a slashdot article, followed by a somewhat misleading follow-up statement by Thompson Multimedia.

What remains is that since that 'change' any person or company providing any sort of MP3 decoding software must not make any profit in any form (e.g. if the software enhances your OS to make it more valuable and marketable then you can be construed to have profitted), or else they must pay, and Thompson Multimedia won't 'put it in writing' anymore that they will allow those who make absolutely no profit to make MP3 decoding software -- they merely say so through 3rd parties, from what I've been able to uncover.  Previously, even a company like Apple could provide a decoder for free as long as they provided it for free, over the internet, for personal use.

In addition to this more recent licensing restructuring, Thompson's own "MP3 History" page  (http://www.mp3licensing.com/mp3/iso.html) reveals the real secret to its own success:
"In 1997 a minor misdemeanor occurred which was to have massive consequences for mp3. Hackers rewrote the user interface of a commercially available Windows based mp3 encoder application and released the encoder for free download on the Internet. Within days college students were downloading their favorite music, trading files around on the Web, and vying to accumulate the biggest collection of mp3 tracks. 

The rest is history. As free decoders sprung up across the Internet, broadcasters started using mp3 to stream their broadcasts, and Thomson and Fraunhofer had the foresight and business sense to develop and adapt their licensing policy."

Thompson Multimedia didn't rush, as Microsoft surely would, to crush these 'rebels'.  They bid their time and let the format grow to a standard and then came in with their big lawyer guns to make sure everyone paid for that standard.  _Encoding_ was never free by-the-books, but I think that we all know that very many big business successes aren't made by playing strictly by the books, and so it was for Thompson.  That so-called "misdemeanor", along with Thompson's intelligent decision to 'neglect' the books of legal action for a time, propelled the MP3 format into world domination ().  Encoding was virtually free (made possible by Thompson) for a good while until Thompson came crackign down and decoding was quite legally free for many software companies until the aforementioned change in policy. 


As for your "corrections" about DVD players:  I was wrong only in that I missed the announced Panasonic models.  (Thanks for that correction).  However, even the Panasonic model and the other models you mentioned serve only to prove my point.  Only two companies have actually unveiled _upcoming_ products and the rest have merely announced "their *intent* to support HighMAT in their *future* products".  No WMV9 DVD players are even on the market yet (as I said), only two makers have gone as far as to unveil upcoming model products and the fact remains that the thousands (millions?) of DVD players out there aren't upgradeable and aren't going away, and people will want their home videos to work on them for some time -- all supporting my statement that the Apple & MP4 still have plenty of time left, which you seem to agree with me on.

I don't think there's much to "correct" about that.  I, like you, think that the formats will coexist and don't expect a clear winner.

As far as Archos "beat[ing] Apple to the punch," I think you're way off on that.  Please note that I said "get to market first with a jaw-dropping right-priced iPod II video player" with "first" being in reference to before WMV9 becoming relatively standard on people's computers and MS or someone else getting WMV9 iPod-like devices out there.  As far as I know, neither condition has yet been made true, and thus my statement stands.

WMV9 definitely isn't a widely used (as in, actually used, which is my whole point) home-video codec (as opposed to DV) yet, and I don't know of any iPod or even Archos-like WMV9 devices out there yet.  Am I mistaken?  The Archos, as you mentioned, supports MP4, and no WMV9.  Also, and more importantly, even though Archos created the first harddrive MP3 player, Apple was the first to come out with an iPod-quality (_pocket_-size, long battery life, hard drive-based, high-speed transfer, and easy to use and navigate all-in-one) player and subsequently took that market (high-end portable hard disk MP3 player) by storm, and really helped revolutionize and invigorate the MP3 market.  "Revolutionize" and "invigorate" are relative terms, but I believe they are correct and it is undisputed that the iPod was the first and only of its class for a very long time and made an astounding impact.  I'm hoping they will perform similar innovation with the iPod II (assuming that the rumor sites are correct and that such a device really does exist).

Also, when you say "Companies like Archos already beat Apple to the punch on Video-capable portable players", exactly which other companies, besides Archos, are you referring to?  I know RCA plans to release a video Lyra someday, but an unreleased product can hardly be classified as beating Apple to the punch.  Which others did you have in mind?  I'd like to check them out.

Let's remember that this whole discussion of ours about WMV9 & MP3's is based on just _one_ example of why I disdain that certain PC columnist who claimed, for one thing, that Apple had "nowhere to go" with respect to WMV9 and that WMV9 had an assured victory.  We've expanded into lots of other technicalities, which is fun of course.   Still, I think _everything_ we've said here has gone on to prove my original point: that PC columnist is inaccurate and/or dishonest in at least this point (and, I believe, various others) and doesn't make for good recommended reading.

And I suppose this whole thread of ours is based on iMovie vs. WMM2.  I can't wait until iMovie 3 comes out next week and I can't wait until I have a chance to try WMM2.  Hopefully WMM2 will be good enough for my parents to use and hopefully it will propel Apple & the MPEG-4 group into action.  I'm glad Microsoft is keeping Apple on their toes.

Cheers.


----------



## n4cer (Jan 19, 2003)

Interesting RE: MP3

RE: Portable WMV and/or MP4 players

There are portable CD players listed on the Windows Media site that support Windows Media Video

Portable CD Players  
Kenwood CD Player               
Imation Imation RipGO!               
Compaq CD Player PCD-1               
Compaq CD Player PM-1               
WAITEC Clipp CD Player               
Sonic/Rio RioVolt SSP100               
Sonic/Rio RioVolt SSP250               
Sonic/Rio RioVolt SSP90               
iRiver SlimX 

Solid state and/or Harddrive players from a few other companies:

There's the Flipster
http://www.pogoproducts.com/flipster.html

The Motion-i
http://www.impactra.com/eproducts.htm

and the Cinema Disk (You'll probably like this one best):
http://www.deltrontech.com/Enclosure/CinemaDisk/cinemadisk.htm

and almost any Windows CE based device.

Also, keep in mind that WMV 8, which is currently more widely supported than 9, is still comparable in quality to MP4, and will maintain compatability with upcoming 9 Series players.

Anyway, the way things are going, this should be a good race.

I hope you can give some info (other than what's on Apple's site) on iMovie3 when it's available (including what's new). I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on it.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 26, 2003)

Cool, thanks for the links n4cer.    The solid-state ones don't really interest me because they don't hold much, but that Cinema disk does look really cool!  It's got Firewire, USB 2.0, 20-60GB HD, a removable card slot, S-video & composite output, power through USB 2 bus, adapter or Li-Ion battery, and 720x480 MPEG 2 output!  Cool!  Does it really exist though?  I couldn't find a purchase link for it on their site or anywhere on the web for it.

Oh yeah -- did you really mean "windows media video" for those CD players?  Do the CD players have video-out jacks or something?  I checked a couple out and they appear to support WM9 Audio but not Video.

Too bad Apple pushed the release date for iMovie 3 back a week or else I would have been throwing in my experience with it right now.   Oh well.

Yup!  Gonna be a good race!    Hopefully good, healthy competition will end up being great for us consumers (PC & Mac).  Looks like it will!


----------



## n4cer (Feb 2, 2003)

Sorry it took so long to respond.

MS' Windows Media site lists those CD players as being WMV capable. This must be a misprint because after checking, I, like you, only found that they were WMA. Sorry.

The Cinema Disk apparently isn't yet available in the US. It was shown at CES, so maybe it isn't far off for the US.

Other devices that will soon be available (won't fit in your pocket  ) are Media Center Edition laptops. Alienware and Toshiba will be first with those.

BTW, the MS CES vid is now available.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/events/ces03/keynote.asp


----------

