This is what's always cited to me as well, but it seems like Fighters and Paladins went in the right direction, Druids got nerfed, Clerics got nerfed a little (mostly spells), Wizards went nowhere and Sorcerers got buffed. lolwut?
Fighters and Paladins still hit people with sticks, and the other classes still cast spells. I've been told that Oracles do a mean combat as well, embarassing fighters.
I'm in a Core PF game with a Fighter and some other people and I'm playing a Sorc and it seems just as dumb as it ever did (though I guess I can do a smaller number of foolish things).
They also nerfed combat manuevers (Improved Trip is now two feats now) and made terrible feats like Elephant Stomp. (While I'm sure 3.5 has a ton of bad feats and I can name several, it's more glaring when there are less feats since each one is effectively one option that isn't even actually an option)
I dunno, don't want to hijack the thread but just wanted to update with "That's what I've heard" and "I don't buy it." I'd be willing to hear other ideas.
Wizards and sorcerers got buffed
as classes (leaving aside certain wizard ACFs) compared to 3.5. The thing is, wizards and sorcerers were never about the class features - what got nerfed on them was some (not all or even enough in my opinion, but some) of the key broken spells and mechanics. The class chassis was improved, so instead of a class you PrC out of and still get all the brokenness, you get a class with interesting class features and fewer things that break the game in half. This is why it is, to me, counterproductive to include Spell Compendium and such in Pathfinder games.
Combat maneuvers were not exactly globally buffed or nerfed; as far as I can tell they are stronger in some circumstances and weaker in others. I haven't gotten a chance to play with them much yet to be honest, so I can't give full feedback, but again a significant amount of the change is in the underlying mechanics rather than right out and obvious in the feats - from the little I've seen of it (empirical evidence to be taken with a grain of salt) grappling seems to be a bit more useful, for example.
Battle Oracles are pretty hardcore, but they don't "outfight fighters" the way clerics used to do on top of being full-casters. Full-casters in general don't outfight fighters anymore, which is at least a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as I said, they didn't fix
enough: full-casters don't outfight fighters but that was never really the underlying problem. While the scale of the problem has been changed, the essential problem remains: fighters get awesome at fighting, wizards get good at breaking the rules, and breaking the rules is still a better thing to be able to do. It is, however, an improvement in that in 3.5 fighters didn't even get awesome at fighting and wizards were even better at breaking the rules.
So if they didn't fix the problem, why do I like it? Because even though they didn't fix the underlying problem, they're at least a little closer than 3.5 was. A wizard can still break the game open at relatively low levels if he tries to, but in 3.5 a wizard would almost inevitably end up breaking apart party balance by level 10 or so, without even trying, possibly by level 7 but almost certainly by level 13. In Pathfinder, if nobody's trying shenanigans, the game can stay functional to 15 or so. It's not fixed, but it's less badly broken.
I don't have any strong investment in "Pathfinder Is The Bestest" and I'm a little disappointed that it didn't fix as much as I would have wanted it to, but it comes closer than 3.5 does in my opinion, and that's something.