Difference depends
On what people got out of their first D&D. People who started with 2nd ed. or earlier played D&D all kinds of ways that would be "incompatible" if tried at the same table at once. 3E had some of this, too, though not to the same extent, I think.
If you played Basic at my table in the early 80's,
and liked it, then you probably liked 1st ed. AD&D at my table pretty well, liked 3E at times, and really enjoyed the resurgence of 4E. But this is not surprising, since I was always pushing D&D (and other games) into places that 4E wants to go anyway. (I've been consciously and actively doing battles that involve interesting terrain as a primary positive feature of the combat since at least my early Fantasy Hero days in the late 80s--and not just "set piece" battles either.)
In contrast, if you really enjoyed the kind of things that 3E pushes, and always would have in earlier editions, then you would have been mainly unhappy in any D&D (or Fantasy Hero) game I ever ran. (You'd have been pushing me to run RuneQuest or something similar, where I did play more in the 3E style.)
But the funny thing is that I don't think any of the current nine players at our table care one iota, about any of this. All they want is a fun game. I'm totally burned out on running 3.* right now, and I'm enjoying running 4E. So from a strictly practical point, they'd rather play 4E because that is the system that will get them a good game. Or we might play Burning Wheel. Just not anything that I'm burned out on.
).
