I've been playing D&D since B/X and AD&D (1e), and have played at least a little bit of 1E through 5E. I've played 4E the least because, while it had some interesting innovations, and (as Tom H said) scored high on presentation, it didn't feel enough like previous editions for my taste (so it's the only edition I never DMed). So I stuck with 3.5 for a full decade until my group decided to try Pathfinder, and that's been our default system since.
I have played and run 5E--though not nearly as much as I would like--and I enjoy it a great deal. Its simplicity is its real strength. It's easy to learn, feels a great deal like 2E in tone and play, and has just enough of the variety of options that 3E had to keep character creation and advancement interesting but not burdensome.
I'm torn to say whether I like Pathfinder or 5E better. PF appeals to my desire to tinker and to closely define many little details, and I know it far better. I'm using it for my current home game because that campaign was originally conceived for 3.5, so PF remains the best way to express certain core parts of the setting without massive rewriting. I'm also heavily involved in Pathfinder Society organized play. But PF can frequently be labor-(or at least choice-)intensive when it comes to character creation and GM prep, so I honestly can't say how much I'll want to run another long-term campaign with it after we finish this one. (I'm aiming for us to reach 20th level and at least a few mythic tiers by the end, so the answer very well could be, "Please, *anything* else!" ;-) )
Meanwhile, I'm trying to get more familiar with 5E by running canned adventures for my wife and kids. I'm seriously considering using 5E for my next foray into Green Ronin's Freeport setting--enough so that
I've been writing about combining the two on and off on my blog for the past couple years. But it's going to be quite a while before I can commit to running any new full-time game.