Whereas I don't think it's a coincidence . . .
So I don't think it's just me who is getting more from 4e than easy GMing.
I agree it's not just easy DM'ing, but I think it's worth noting that the easy DM'ing is related to the 'driftability' of 4e.
What made 4e work for me was the fact that it was freeing. It handled all the nitty gritty in a way that I (mostly) didn't have to worry about it. It gave me the freedom to focus on story and narrative that I felt I'd been losing.
As I mentioned in another thread, I came to 4e out of a high level 3.5 game-- a game I very much loved incidentally-- But that game was starting to stress me out. I spent all my time prepping the mechanical elements (big baddies and such) that I never had time to engage the story. When 4e came along, I felt free in a way I hadn't since 1e-- I built a whole raft of unique and fun 35th level solos over a few hours one evening. I had the ease of 1e with the mechanical balance and elegance of 4e. It was awesome.
So I embraced 4e wholesale-- because now I was back to being the story guy rather than the guy who was combing through all the supplements trying to make sure I could keep up with my players.
But, as I've said elsewhere, not all my players did. Some got hung up on the overt visibility of the mechanics (roles, power structure, finely tuned level advancment). They all came around eventually, after a lot of fun play. But I do understand why they hesitated. I do get what bothered them.
I have high hopes for D&DN partly because-- for me-- the details of how they implement the mechanics don't matter to me so long as they work smoothly. I'm fine, even excited, to see them bury those mechanics inside the story elements. I think that's a very achievable goal.
In a way, it's interesting for me to realize that the details of the mechs don't matter to me. I don't really care if there are healing surges or powers or the same action economy or roles or anything else. It just needs to work cohesively-- and elegantly-- as a whole. I'd even rather they made the mechanics a bit less overt (though I still want access to how they work . . . I'm funny that way).
By the way, Permerton, I think it might be cool if you explicitly defined what you mean by 'operational' play and its opposite. I think I get what you mean. And I think it's a very interesting way to look at the game. I'd be interested to have you spell it out. I think it might be useful for discussion, as I've not heard it described quite that way before (I'll admit to being a novice at game design talk).
AD