Movie Maker 2.6 or Live Movie Maker 2012

[Adithya]

The title says it all.

I've tried both and i think 2012 is more faster and does have visual effects (I know you can put addition effects in 2.6 with custom effect packs) but something about the Live Movie Maker is better than Movie Maker 2.6, I really can't say what, but it is VERY easy to make something interesting.

I've searched the web for answers but everywhere it's mixed with 2.6 and 2012 and most of them suggest 2.6 but i can't see why?

Does anyone here have an opinion?

[railroadartwork]

I prefer Movie Maker 2012. Why?

You can save directly to MP4.
You can create your own presets on the fly.

Now, if you are interested in custom effects packs, I would still go with 6.0 over 2.6. Why?

It can be installed on any version of Windows with this tweaked installer:

http://movies.blainesville.com/p/wmm-60-on-windows-7.html

It comes with a few HD presets too!

In summary, I've been using both 6.0 and MM12; however, I've recently tried Video Pad Video Editor and that has now become my favorite because it can do video overlays.

[mike20021969]

It can be installed on any version of Windows...

Any version as long as it's 7, 8/8.x or 10 (according to the page you linked to).

[railroadartwork]

It can be installed on any version of Windows...

Any version as long as it's 7, 8/8.x or 10 (according to the page you linked to).

My apologies for the (literally) inaccurate statement. I just forgot about all those die-hard Win 3.1 and XP users.

[TreeTops]

Polls are supposed to be in a different section of this forum. Bottom of forum.