Interface
Well, you gotta have a way to assign interactivity to the objects in your project, and the ways both programs go about it are as different as night and day. There are similar concepts running throughout both; it's the implementation that varies so wildly. Both use movie clips as the basis for interactivity, but Flash has dedicated button symbols, while LiveMotion uses object states. You can break up the action in Flash MX through the use of scenes, while in LiveMotion you're reliant on the master timeline to contain your entire project. Both programs are extensible, Flash MX through components and LiveMotion through LiveTabs. Identical functionality, very different ways of accessing that functionality. Personally, I think the LiveMotion timeline paradigm breaks down and gets kind of confusing once you get into more complex interactions and that the Flash interface holds up a little better under the same circumstances. However, I do realize that some users may have the complete opposite experience. There's no right or wrong here, since both accomplish the same task, and interface preference is so subjective anyway. [an error occurred while processing this directive] Round 2 Winner: Surprisingly, it's a draw. Both programs provide more than passable environments to script in, and the methods of writing code for either program are strikingly similar. While LiveMotion 2 may not be able to do absolutely everything Flash 5 can, as Adobe's marketing literature proclaims, it's damn close. Simply put, scripting is no longer a liability for LiveMotion, and there's quite a lot you can do with it. And choosing an interface is a matter of individual taste, so I'll leave that judgment to you.

Round 3: Intangibles
OK, we're down to the third and final round in a very close bout! We'll try to make this one quick by just naming off some of the variables that could ultimately decide this match:

Video. Flash MX supports it natively; LiveMotion 2 doesn't. BUT ... if you bring Wildform's $129 Flix utility into the picture, either can have excellent interactive video support.

Latest and greatest. Flash MX can write to the latest revision of the SWF file spec; LiveMotion can only produce Flash 5 SWF files. Flash 6 will give you the embedded video support MX boasts, extra compression and the ability to load external JPEG and MP3 files at runtime. But Flash 6 isn't everywhere quite yet, and could take several months or more to become as pervasive as the Flash 5 player.

Speed. Both programs perform comparably under Windows 2000 and Mac OS 9. But Flash MX runs circles around LiveMotion 2 under Mac OS X. That's a big issue for OS X adopters.

Interoperability. Do you collaborate with other designers and developers frequently? If so, chances are that you'll need to be able to share FLA files with colleagues. LiveMotion has its own proprietary LIV format which is incompatible with Flash's native file format.

Community. No contest here. There's a huge and active Flash community. Go to your local bookstore, and you'll have your pick of scores of Flash books. LiveMotion just doesn't have that kind of user base.

Round 3 Winner: Flash MX takes this round easily, as there are just too many variables in its favor.

The scorecard
Wow! This matchup was chock full of shockers, and the bout was much closer than I imagined. But in the end, Flash MX is the winner and still champion. Kudos to the LiveMotion team for getting as close as they did, but Flash MX gets my strong recommendation here for addressing every single glaring weakness that plagued Flash 5. Ultimately, however, you have to be your own judge. Fortunately, both Macromedia and Adobe offer 30-day trials of Flash MX and LiveMotion 2, respectively, so take 'em for a spin and see which is best for you. You just might be surprised....