No, I think a lot of people prefer it because it feels like a more complete song, not just a gimmick single. Or at the very least, it was on the way to a more complete song.
I think a lot of people like the alternate versions (Xanax, ABOY, Native Son) because there's a hint in there of something that would/could have been quite striking and interesting for U2. Remember all the "four guys in a room" talk? Would've been cool if U2 had actually released a four-guys-in-a-room album without any bells and whistles. No myriad of layers, no souped up production, just put themselves front and centre. Those versions give a taste of it, and it sounds like it could have been very good, especially when compared with the too clinical, too slick versions that we ended up getting.
Also, I don't get, and never will get, people comparing alternate or long canned versions of songs with finished album versions directly. Whether it's Native Son or Xanax or Mercy or Winter - it's not apples and apples. The alternate/canned versions are nothing more than works in progress. OF COURSE you couldn't dump Native Son, or the Linear Winter, or whatever, on an album as is. You have to use a bit of imagination to fill the gap. Sometimes a lot of imagination. Native Son sounds like it's been mixed by a 2yr old. Linear Winter sounds like it's been edited by a 5yr old AND mixed by a 2yr old. They're obviously just the last, quick work-in-progress edits the songs had before they took on a new turn or were canned. None of the standard U2 layering upon layering upon layering is there, none of the editing or mixing finesse, and in most cases, clearly not all the songwriting/structural or lyrical work is likely close to a finish. OF COURSE the Vertigo we have sounds better than the Native Son we have. But could 'Native Son', that basic song with that rough structure/lyric/sound etc, have become a better song than the finished Vertigo? Those that say 'very likely yes' aren't crazy for thinking that.