Actually I began playing 1e in 1980. Eventually trying to houserule 1e into something I was satisfied nearly drove me to madness. I was relieved when 2e came out but it didn't fix many of the things I didn't like with 1e, plus sanitizing the game for Mothers Against D&D was a colossal cop-out. I liked the changes that 3e made to the game, but then they went and added tons of superstructure to the game I DIDN'T like.
Pathfinder came out with their "fixes" to 3.X but went in the direction of increasing the complexity when I was hoping for decreasing it. I love Paizo as a company, but their rules system just didn't appeal to me. 4e was never a game I could warm up to. It may be an excellent miniatures Skirmish game, but it threw out way too much of the things I liked in ALL previous editions. I do like the rule on critical hits though, so there is that. Castles & Crusades came the closest to "being D&D to me" so that was what I went with. But, since it didn't have the D&D logo on it, it never received much traction in the gaming world. The publisher's habits of poor editing didn't help either.
5E now comes along with a stated goal of creating a simpler, modular core that can be extended with expansions. So far this sounds like a wonderful design philosophy. The designers are also making a huge effort to promote the game in terms that are as inclusive as possible. I absolutely applaud this.
What they have said gives me more hope that 5e will be the best version of D&D that I have ever laid eyes on, even games that don't have those three symbols on the box. Now when the playtest rules come out I may find myself to be completely wrong but I don't think so. I really think I'll like at least 90% of the game and if they get that close I will be elated.
When the final rules are published I would love to be playing and running actual D&D again. At least at this point I have hope.