Ehhhh....yes and no.

My position on 4E is that it has a few good ideas, but for the most part is a dull, ponderous, bloated piece of shit much like 3rd edition.

However, I recently started playing in a good friend's 4E campaign, which is like a mashup of spelljammer/planescape. He manages to eschew a lot of the things I hated about 4E (the grid and minis, the slow, long, grindy combats, skill challenges, fiddly character-build munchkining, etc.) the result being that his game plays fast and loose, and we have more time to focus on exploration and mysteries.

He even let me kitbash an Essentials-style Warlord class so I wouldn't have to worry about digging through a mess of feats, powers, backgrounds, etc. every level.

The caveat to this is that the DM managed to get me to like the game by tossing out a lot of 4E rules. For instance, I can tell that he's not tracking movement, positioning and monster HP as fastidiously as 4E usually requires, which would cause most rules lawyers to menstruate verbally, but results in a much better play experience for ME. However, the fact that he's heavily modifying the system to make it playable can only logically be seen as an indictment of 4E rather than a defense of it. I suspect that I would still dislike the game a lot if it were played by the book.

The caveat to the aforementioned caveat is that I never play games by the book anyway, because everyone I know who plays AD&D/BECMI houserules the shit out of them anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me as long as it results in more fun at the table.