Pathfinder breaks as many things as it manages (or attempts) to fix, IMO.
Fighters got nerfed hard, with PA being less effective and combat maneuvers (namely improved trip) no longer working as well (and that is saying something, considering you were already struggling to use them effectively in 3.5!). The designers got this funny idea that maneuvers ought to be harder to use successfully against tougher foes. This leads to the problematic scenario of players favouring the pure-attack route and eschewing combat maneuvers even more despite the new streamlined mechanic, because tripping is more risky than ever, and you don't need to trip weaker foes.
In a nutshell, the designers knew 3.5e was broken and tried to fix it, except that they didn't really know what made 3.5e broken in the first place! So my conclusion is that pathfinder is simply different, and not necessarily any better or worse off than 3.5e. The art is excellent though. Use with a grain of salt and an open mind.
Everyone's experiences are different, I suppose, but I haven't seen anything closely resembling this. Fighters got additional class features that make them more effective in combat, better feat options across all levels of play. CMB/CMD went a long way to making special manuevers more accessible.
Perhaps it's just a playstyle thing. I've seen more uses of special tactics as a result rather than fewer. However, my players are making those choices based on tactical relevance & the desire to do something cool. I've yet to see them calculate the odds before declaring an action. YMMV.
It's fascinating to me to see posts/threads arguing both sides of the issue at the same time (fighters got supe'd up/nerfed; wizards got nerf'd; clerics are better CODzillas/got nerfed...). The only thing I can take away from that is that all claims of brokeness have a
really big subjective measurement component to them.
Taken as a whole, I'd say the following of Pathfinder:
1. It remains true to the core of 3.x gaming
2. It narrows the disparity amongst the classes.
3. It has a stated goal of only utilizing new base classes where necessary/appropriate rather than to drive splat books. It will be interesting to see the final product, but I'm anticipating that the Advanced Players Guide will provide enough variant class abilities that a lot of additional base classes will be rendered unnecessary.
4. Its existence is owed to the desire to preserve the Paizo business model of publishing adventures. Y'know, telling shared stories with the game? The reason everyone started playing in the first place!
Game mechanics without role-playing, adventures, and settings are just an exercise in rolling dice and crunching numbers. Although I like my crunch as well as the next person, I think too many game companies forget this.
I don't know about the rest of you but I started playing to meet girls!! 
