Shh, you'll give our secret away.
As for OP's post, I'll give my own two cents.
I do like 3.5, although I did have some gripes with it, espcially as a not so quick guy. The challenges varied from DM to DM, but overall, the biggest mistakes I made on my part, were due to the obvious lack of...comprehension? that the challenge before me was a challenge at all. They smoothed a lot of this over in 4e, by clearly defining what is an encounter, and what your options are. In 3.5, I often ran aground in "What to do between fightin'" scenes, where the DM generally allowed you to find your own unique way to the next encounter. In 3.5, I often stumbled through this clumsily, and went for the straightest path possible. In 4e, they gave me the option to look a bit smarter by saying "I put my heart in the dice!" and rolling to see if I win at doing nothing. By this, I mean it pushes the DM to eliminate the offtime freeform scenes, and give him an opportunity to create an environment in which the players must meet a specific challenge. But all in all, DM's run the game as they will, and in DnD, they make the game fun, or as not fun, as possible.
Theres my two imperial cents. Emperor bless you if you find anything to buy with it.