And I remember in 2011, Stefan Hill saying he preferred 3.0 (although he may be switching to 5e now. I'm not sure).
So there is hope for 3.0.
And so Stefan Hill did ;)
I liked some of the changes, Ranger for example. But things like the change to the rules about damage reduction I really disliked. By having 'more damage' be the answer to say a werewolf it reduced, in my opinion, alternative approaches other than "Optimise DPS" as the only true way to build a PC. Also my group has never (even back in 1e) never used battle maps. 3.5 forced me to either do so or have nightmare ToM combats given how many of the combat maneuvers or feats worked in 3.5. Not saying 3.0 was blameless here, but it was more managable. So yes on the whole I liked 3.0 better than 3.5. 3.5 drove me to dig out my 2e books (core only - Options books were blah). I'm rather comfortable with monsters NOT being generated the same way as PC's, in fact I prefer it.
Then came along 5e, 2e evolved. Rather happy with 5e. Still like the initiative system of 2e, but on the whole 5e is now my go to D&D game.