Which design is better?

Perhaps the person liking your old site better is among the > 20% of Americans on dial-up?

According to this report it takes over two minutes to load. :\

I think sites with loads of flash and dynamic content look absolutely fantastic
If done correctly, they can be a masterpiece of web design.

But they should only be used as a showcase for webmaster abilities/tutorials etc, or unless they can be done with small load times, which the two very rarely coincide.

Your new designed site has far too much dynamic content on it, again, looks smart, but I have 20MB broadband and it took a while to load for me.
Not everyone around the world using the internet has that sort of speed. Even where it's available, people browsing the internet a few times a week get the bottom end package as its cheaper and all they need.

The person who said they liked you old site better is entitled to his opinion as everyone else, but all opinions are different. sounds like from what you wrote he is in the minority.
The old design (the current live one) is annoying, I click the "Skip Intro" and it ignores my request and plays it anyway.
As there is nothing else for me to look at while MB's of data are bursting down my pipe I get bored, frustrated that it wont skip when I ask it so close the tab or click back.

again, everyone has a different opinion, you cant please everyone, but you can try to please the majority and importantly follow the basics rules that are well known to be accurate.
I.E. sites with too much in them are confusing, site with too little can sometimes look unprofessional or bare, sites with too much data transfer from large images/flash etc are usually slow loading, and slow sites are a pain and something most people these days wont tolerate as there are far too many other options/competition

Personally, both designs need some work. Flash sites don't work well, especially the SEO factor. The second design, needs revamping to show the 10 Elements of Art and Design.

The second design...

1. Text is too small, even @ 1024x768 resolution.
2. Being Flash based, can't increase text size (use CSS and em or percentages for text so it can scale depending on user choices).
3. One or two Flash elements are only needed. Usually the logo will do (and by default no audio).
4. Ditch any unnecessary Javascript, including for navigation. If someone is browsing without JS turned on, what will they see?
5. Right chief at top is being hidden by that orange block. If it is by design, remove the background shape. Visitors will see it as a design flaw.
6. Match color schemes. Logo background doesn't match the color scheme of the page or footer backgrounds.
7. Margins. Elements are crowded against the border. Again use em or percentage so it'll scale accordingly.
8. Web designers need to serve XHTML Strict pages. Show to customers you can design clean layouts, that can totally depend on a stylesheet. It is harder, but this is your front door to your store.

WARNING! do not click any links posted by this user, his links load "downloader" to this location

Source: C:\Documents and Settings\Jedi\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\3B5P9P1E\index[1].htm

In other words, do you want to know why his first link is the one that takes so long to load even on a 20MiB line? Because it's downloading and installing a virus. Drive by.

You've been warned.

Thanks for this, it took me a few tries to get the virus to download. Links deleted.

It might not be this guys fault, I've had a server hacked and virus installer put on it before. Not nice.

Thanks for the heads up guys, we should sticky something to this effect for the knowledge of those not familiar with header injections and iframe injections...