so Shimeran, casting spells is not a class feature of the spellcaster classes

The thing is in 4E, rituals are not spells. Spells are the powers of arcane casters, just as prayers are the powers of divine casters. Rituals are treated more like elaborate special procedures that if done properly will be effective regardless of who the user is. Examples of this are common enough in fiction. This first one to pop into my head is the movie Army of Darkness. In contrast spells and prayers are more like special abilities gained through initiation and/or training. Spellcasters are characterized by those "touched by magic" abilities. While knowing how to perform rituals is common amoung caster, not all casters get that training (paladin and warlock don't).

geting somethign because you multiclass, is diferent that geting it because you take general feats

How is it different? The only difference I'm seeing is that multi-classing feats are a subset of general feats. In both cases the player is saying, "I want to expand my character concept to get a bit more magic". By the same token, why doesn't the cleric suck when the fighter can raise dead? Why doesn't the rogue suck when another class can be just as good at spotting and disabling traps (though skill training feats)?

a priest or warlord could have replaced the wizard easilys eting in the same place healing the warrior and hiting the foe as they aproached

Ah, but the Kruthik had a damage aura and neither or those classes has the ability to force the enemy back out of melee range. That means even if they healing provided kept up with the Krutik's damage on the fighter, they would be taking damage themselves. In the same scenario, the wizard took no damage. The closest match would be a ranged cleric and they could have kept it up for a maximim of two rounds at the cost of not being able to heal anyone else.
There was also a second front in the battle. By locking down that front by himself, the wizard let the fighter swing around to help deal with an attack on the other side.

I said in my previus post, not because I can catch 5 bugst with a lvl 2 trooper means the troopers are l33t

Just like being taken down when the odds and/or dice are against you doesn't mean you suck. So let's look at average performance. Yes, last session was probably the wizard's best so far. However, that character hasn't had a single session where she sucked. Even when acting as a second melee character (I mentioned this is a heavily ranged party), she's only gone down once and that scenario was one character away from being a TPK (and that one character wasn't a defender).

it just fall short and is too similar to the other classes to be called a wizard, I also did the comparation with controller from similar sistems (PC MMORPG ragnarock online), and while the pow has been proved to work at low levels and agaisnt minions mostly, this plus the uncertainty of hiting, hurt it badly, control need to be at least certain to be reliable.

So the wizard sucks unless it's a unique snowflake with it's own separate system that no other class has, but cantrips and spell preparation (which was previously shared with other classes) aren't enough?
Interesting, in those same games you mentioned in your comparison I believe everyone automatically hits. Thus the wizards in those games have the same level of accuracy as every other class, just like in 4E.
As tigg mentioned, multiple attack rolls actually increase the chance for at least limited control. The wizard also has a variety of auto-damage powers, which means more reliable damage. They can also lay down terrain with automatic effects for reliable control effects. For example, even on a miss Icy terrain can reduce enemy movement.

n647 wrote:

finally Tigg75 I did read all the post before responding, and in those 58 pages I have yet to see a well funded counterargument to the mage suck thesis (ok from the very limited scope of 4E is only marginally worse than the rest, and I accepted that if you check my post), but it just fall short and is too similar to the other classes to be called a wizard, I also did the comparation with controller from similar sistems (PC MMORPG ragnarock online), and while the pow has been proved to work at low levels and agaisnt minions mostly, this plus the uncertainty of hiting, hurt it badly, control need to be at least certain to be reliable.

The title of the thread is "Wizards DO Suck", but just saying 'wizards suck' is very vague.
There have been two major meanings of 'wizards suck' over these last 58 pages:
1) 4E Wizards suck because their power level and ability to contribute effectively to a party (in battle, mostly) is considerably smaller than the rest of the 4E classes.
2) 4E Wizards suck because the design of the class has bad features (individual choices that are much better than the other possible choices, etc).
1) has been debated a lot more than 2) on this thread.

What you're suggesting, comparing the Wizard against controllers in other systems--hasn't really been debated here.  This is why you're not seeing any counterarguments against it--that's not the argument.
Likewise, your argument that wizards such because other classes get rituals too has little bearing on argument 1) (if every class has feature X, then it's the non-X features that determine relative class power), and pretty much none on argument 2).
Feel free to continue to make those points, but people aren't necessarily going to necessarily engage you on them, because they're tangential to the main thrust of the thread.

n647 wrote:

2- in the system the warrior is a defender, so actually if he hit 50% of the time is not that bad, that would be bad for strikers, and I can make again the comparation to ragnarock online, a hunter that does not hit is useless, a crusader that doesn’t hit but hold, is doing his job, now  for control you need reliability, if you don`t get that reliability is hard to control $$

Well, it's not clear that the strikers are going to be hitting that much more than the fighter; rangers/warlocks get prime shot and rogues get rogue weapon talent, but fighters get fighter weapon talent.  Strikers may get combat advantage more than the fighter, but not necessarily much more; the fighter's perfectly capable of flanking too. 
Ultimately, though, if you think any role (striker or controller) needs significantly more than a 50% chance to hit, then yes, those roles are going to look bad to you, since attacks at around 50% are a pretty basic part of 4E.
I'm not sure why you think controllers _need_ to hit all 3 targets in your example, though; affecting 1 or 2 monsters with a status effect doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
Plus, a 50% hit chance can be balanced by the severity of status effects; would you rather have a burst 2 that slowed targets and hit 90% of the time, or a burst 2 that stunned targets but only hit 50% of the time?  I'll take the stunning, easily.

n647 wrote:

3- You are talking about 2 or 3 spells that are daily, I expect to see every wizard take them... not a good sign for balance is it?

I assume by that you mean the walls.  But not every wizard is going to take the wall spells, as nice as they are.
Consider the alternatives:
At level 9 daily:
Wall of Fire, or
Ice Storm -- Immobilize (save ends) is nice for Orb wizards.

Level 15 daily:
Wall of Ice, or
Prismatic Beams -- very nice, especially for Orb wizards
Bigby's Grasping Hands -- wizards with high Con (staff wizards) can get an amazing amount of damage out of this.

Level 1 daily:
Flaming Sphere (wall-ish), or
Sleep -- LOTS of wizards are going to take sleep.

Terrain spells are nice, but by no means the only choice.