Skills have bugged me a bit in the way they're handled in the core DnD rules....
For me, it boils down to what I consider a case of 'Double Penalization'. ie, they've taken 2 ideas that, on their own, make sense and work to achieve their aim, the problem is they've used them both. The two ideas are:
a) fighters (as an example) focus on training, so they don't get many skill points.
b) fighters focus on their training, so non-combat/physical skills (such as spot) are harder for them to learn, so they're 'cross-class'.
So, you end up a case where fighters have maybe 3 or 4 skill points on average (including Int and Human), and if they want to branch out from climbing, running, jumping, swimming (reminds me of an Eddie Izzard skit), well, good luck.
If I were to suggest a change to the system, I'd probably take a course that is the opposite of what has been suggested above: rather than remove cross-class skills, instead increase skill points. Give the 2+ folk 4+ now, give the 4+ 6+ instead, and leave the 8+ where it is. Heck, even without increasing the 4+ group, its not like a fighter will ever out-skill a ranger; the cross-class penalty will keep that in check.
IMHO, this would increase diversity amongst members of the same (low-skill) classes, both for things like spot, move silently and for knowledge skills, etc.
Though, that doesn't mean I wouldn't play around a bit with some of the (cross-)class skill designations; knowledge:local should never be cross-class IMHO, for example. And I think a starting character should be able to select a craft/know skill or two to make class-, or get a few ranks in, or some more everyman skills (to borrow a term from HERO); they are doing SOMETHING and learning something before they take up the adventurer's call. }:>
Kannik