...
"XP itself is of dubious value."
In a system where all classes have the same advancement rates, and people are expected to all level at the same time, regardless of performance or contribution, or their paltry xp bonuses that rarely change which session you level, then yes, XP is not only dubious, but moronic. The DM should just level you when he wants and it fits the story. We gave up on XP in 4e, and then later on in Pathfinder too (largely), except as a book-keeping measure to keep up with adventure modules' expected pacing. In an organic, custom campaign, it's idiotic when all PCs are expected to advance at the same rates (or else, some players will whine...? that their level 3 guy wasn't as powerful as a level 5 guy?) I never understood the reasoning behind that.
"Differing XP for classes is just a cruddy hack."
Again, only in 3.0+ where all classes are expected to level at the same rate. In 4e it's only worse, because try balancing that. A wizard in AD&D needed three quarters of a million XP to reach level 9, if he made it that far (not bloomin likely, guv'nor). I loved AD&D wizards, for the challenge and the rewards, and the creativity they allowed in solving problems. I don't want a ranged pew pew caster who's essentially no different than an AOE ranger with some nifty -- but ultimately easily boredom inducing through sheer repetition -- control effects.
Having XP mean something, where you TRY to get all those bonus points for good roleplaying, creative use of your spells, your 10% bonus for rolling well (in our game, I had to have all my stats good to reach level 14 as an evoker). First off, you need good Int, mine was 17. You needed a 16 Con to merely qualify for your class, and if you die and get raised, another good reason to have a high con...but whoops, you lose all your bonus spells. Life wasn't easy, with no armor, I needed that 16 dex to survive. With few magic items, I needed that charisma too for all the social RP scenarios where we had to convince lords and barons and contrary people to let us achieve our goals. A failed check was often a DISASTER. I once killed the entire party with a fireball, to kill the enemy pirate lord inside his ship, to prevent him from delivering his prisoners to some demon ritual that would have ended the world. When it came time to do raise dead, the party put in the 10,000 GP from the treasure (the ship was raised with help of the sea elves and their huge squid mounts) to get a real resurrection for my character. This was after I ferried everyone around the world, helped them establish baronies, fix their castle walls, but suffering every step of the way because magic was feared and illegal.
Balance for its own sake, taken to too much of an extreme -- in my opinion -- is exactly why 4e failed so quickly. It does not feel like D&D to me.
In AD&D wizards are not gods, they are hunted, shunned, feared, and usually -- killed off first. Getting to any decent level -- with the example I gave, e.g. 750,000 XP to get to level 9, was not a trivial task. Rogues would be there far earlier, and clerics too, and fighters -- they might have been lackluster, but our paladins never complained when I cast stoneskin on them, or made them fly when they needed it, or conversed with them on where to direct their paladin armies around my spells when launching an assault on the vampire lich's realm.
If anything, the only way wizards can live that long is if you are very smart (in real life), lucky every step of the way, and careful in RP situations. It needs a DM that can actually think about the consequences of rampant magic in the world, and minimize it. It should be rarer, more special...otherwise, indeed : Why would there be a fighter when everyone could fly around on magic carpets? Oh wait...because those things were expensive, wondrous, rare, and cost you an arm and a leg to make them. Usually you're better off hunting for stuff. Fighters can find a magic sword +1 and be happier with that, they get their plate armor around level 4-5 when they've accumulated enough gold, but wizards had to convince people to let them use their libraries to research spells, and spend money on scrolls with a very good chance of it being wasted outright (imagine if only 75% of the healing potions or magic armor or weapons that other classes bought would not be broken the first time they tried using them...and had to pay tons of material costs to use them each time for their upkeep).
There were tons of problems with earlier editions, but XP worked. XP in both Pathfinder, 3.0, and to a much larger 4e is basically useless if the DM introduces your new PC at the party level, rather than starting at level 1 each time they died. Exponentially increasing XP curves meant that lower level guys could catch up after one or two fights to level 4-5, when they got useful in combat or whatever they were doing. Bored with your PC? Commit suicide, roll better stats (or not..go back to suicide, then repeat), then keep playing. No, starting over at level 1 meant, like in Everquest, it was PAINFUL to die.
Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it. For your beloved character. You might even become attached to them. Imagine that. XP is the pavlovian reward, that DING, we want as roleplayers. Let's make it mean something again, not scoff at it. Earning XP should be fun, make you want to try interesting things rather than your default I roll my swing or drop fireball at the first sign of trouble. How else is a DM to reward players in a low-magic setting? Or a low-magic item setting? XP. That's what D&D means (to me). Getting rid of XP only makes sense if you stick to gamist, contrived "everybody in the party must be within 5% of the same power at all costs...to the point of infinite respawning high level characters to replace your last one who died". No, you should EARN that high level, in a campaign. Not just be given it to you. Modules, fine. But I hate it when players just commit suicide so they can roll the dice and come up with something better, and use starting GP and cherry pick the magic items they want from a table instead of finding them.
