I like the basic die rolling mechanic and the basic skill list from MGT. I also like the fact that the system is similar enough to both CT and MT that it is fairly easy to replace the parts I don't like with systems from CT and MT.
This (turned on its head) is what makes me interested in MGT. I consider myself a die-hard CTer, but in reality, my game has so many borrowings from other versions that it isn't really CT any more, it's just Traveller. In fact I also borrow from non-Traveller games for my house rules. What I always look for is better and more realistic systems, but retaining a playable simplicity.
I won't get to read MGT until the pocket version is out, but it may be that I'll adopt MGT CharGen in preference to CT. OTOH, by all accounts I'm unlikely to use MGT weapon design in preference to Striker...
I'm pretty sure that, in common with every other RPG under the sun, MGT will have good points and bad ones - if I can cherry-pick enough good ones to justify the purchase price, it will have served its purpose for me. Any bits I don't like, I'll simply not incorporate into my game.
I agree with S4's notion that generation software is likely to become a necessity in future games, but at the same time, it worries me because it invites complexity - it doesn't matter how complex the generation/combat system is, because we provide software to do it for you. Unfortunately, the main thing that puts me off computer games is the lack of flexibility - You can't house-rule them.
If RPGs include software in the future, please, please, make it tweakable. If you can't house-rule it, it becomes useless after the first few weeks and you end up writing your own software anyway.