After several years of 4e one of my groups just reverted back to Pathfinder. I agree that combat is a shitload faster, but it seems to have a lot to do with not being able to do much compared to 4e.
Low level 4e characters have multiple abilities some or all that can put effects on people, which is complicated, but interesting. Most importantly they can do this almost every fight. In Pathfinder (or other earlier editions) you need 5+ levels of a spellcasting class to have this kind of stuff, other than "I swing my sword. Power Attack: Yes/No?". I think that is part of the thing in 4e, the idea of "basic melee combat" is gone. All combat has a higher level of complexity and requires a bit more thought.
I find though that 4e favors a more dedicated type of player, and with a group of them the game moves pretty quick and is a lot of fun and you get the best out of it. If you have a group of part-time players who need to be reminded what "Slow" effect does every week, even though they apply it 3-4 times a fight, or has to look over every one of their abilities before deciding what to do each round, then yes, it is going to suck. Pathfinder has been a bit more fun for us as a group (even if I'm a bit miserable), as several people at the table aren't interested in putting a lot of effort into the game. I think 4e, to be really fun, needs a higher level of commitment to the mechanical side that previous editions, which, fairly enough, isn't for everyone.
I can only describe my experience in Pathfinder as "frustrating" at best, though I've been enjoying the story better than what we were doing with 4e, I don't find the rules fun. Though they aren't entirely without merit, all the options for races and classes are pretty nice, fairly flexible for a class based system.
