Well, it depends on your definition of "low magic," or, um, "box," or "has."
The shift from magic being generated from magic items to characters has been profound and noticeable.
The shift from magic being uncommon and powerful to ubiquitous and less powerful (think cantrips) is also noticeable.
Finally, the shift to giving almost every class spells and spell equivalents (to build the classes) is also quite evident.
Putting aside OSR and BECMI, which would be easy to show, let's look at 1e v. 5e (core rules)-
1e-
10 classes.
4 Casters.
6 non-casters.
(Okay, so Paladins and Rangers can cast at name level, with low-level spells ... but still, no one ever said that they want to be a Paladin because at NINTH LEVEL they can cast a first level cleric spell. No, they want to be a Paladin because they have a deep void inside of them that will never be filled)
5e-
12 classes.
6/12 are full casters (that's half).
2/12 are half casters (Paladin, Ranger)
That means that 2/3 of the classes are casters.
That leaves 4 (3!) classes. Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, and Fighter. Rogue and Fighter both have 1/2 casting archetypes. Monk has ki-powered spellcasting archetypes. Even the Barbarian, arguably, can "cast spells."
And then contrast the frequency of spellcasting. You needed meatshields badly in AD&D. So your one magic user might get his single magic missile off, each day, at first level. Meanwhile, over in 5e, it's likely that almost every person in the party can, and likely will spam cantrips.
But another way, the majority of 1e combats could go by without a single spell. I have a hard time envisioning a single combat round in 5e without a spell.
So it's not really comparable.
Please note I am not saying it's better or worse, but it's definitely different.