I can say this much from memory Harl.
It was often very hard to ransack a place because early versions of D&D were dangerous to the characters in ways that later versions never imagined, or sought to entirely mitigate.
And to me that's what bothers me about later versions, though I think later versions also had/have some really positives attributes. But when the game itself is designed in such a way as to hand-hold players, and circumvent character danger, and "balance risk" (when in life do you really get balanced risk) in-game, and prevent you from dying, or getting too out of breath, well, you've missed one of the key elements of what separates Heroes from those who'd rather hire out their risk to more courageous types.
A fantasy game without a Hero willing to risk his head for others against things potentially far more dangerous than he is, (as opposed to just a powered up, bauble painted, self-interested mercenary who won't fight anything or anyone unless he knows the fight is a balanced and fixed one) well - that's like a magic item that's determined by how many pluses it sports rather that what kinda wonder it evokes.
As for what RC was saying about the potential of reward, rather than the assurance of reward, well that also reminds me of the fact that they call it treasure for a reason. It's valuable because you take a real risk to get it, or somebody else takes a real risk to keep it. Or both.
If there were no real risk and cost involved it would be a token, not a treasure - welfare, not wealth. And risk can always go wrong. You can fail. You can lose. Seems a radical idea these days, in-games and outside of them, but there was a day when it was the way things were.
But RCs idea about treasure being potential rather than assured also reminds me of this - Easter Eggs. They're excellent to find, but sometimes, you miss a few. And that's okay.
You are aware that we are in generic edition war territory here?
Into the breach: Your argument has two commonly made mistakes:
1) The first mistake is assuming balanced encounters do not mean risk to the pcs. The opposite is true:A balanced encounter is one where there is risk but not certainty of the pc's death. And if you played modern editions of D&D you may have made the experience that characters die even in balanced encounters. So there is clearly real risk involved. And I have seen multiple TPKs in 3rd edition, probably more than I have ever seen in the older editions.
2)The second mistake is assuming that later editions only "allow" balanced encounters. All they do is provide tools to create balanced encounters. How to use them is the GM's choice. The 4th edition DMG even states that some encounters should not be balanced. Remember, in any RPG, a GM should design challenges that the Pcs can either defeat of avoid (The operative word is "can" not "will"). So you want to know as a GM if your group can handle 3 Trolls, otherwise you better give them an option to run away or parley. In older editions you just made this assessment by eyeballing rather than using the support provided by the rules.