Having never played 1e (and my only experience of 2e was an old computer game I used to play), I'm afraid I can't add too much to the situation, but...
...It sounds to me like most of the reason you people liked 1e was based primarily on how it was run, not how the rules were actually made. Like, for example, "not knowing what's behind the next door" isn't a mechanic of the rules, it's how that person ran the game. What exactly does nostalgia have to do with rules of a game? Aside from the artwork, that is, how does one version of a game have more nostalgia than others?
And I'm sorry that sounds like an accusatory tone- I'm genuinely interested in the answer, as I love that feeling myself, and I'll admit I don't have the same nostalgia for the game now than when I first started playing a few years ago- and yet, I feel that that's primarily my own fault, for the way I play the game's set up. Why do you say that 3e doesn't allow as much room for character development? If anything, I'd feel that a game with less rules and mechanics would give less room for development- at least, less of a starting point, anyway. In my games, I allow whatever roleplaying development as the players want- and I expect the same from other DMs I play with- as long as said development doesn't interfere with others' enjoyment of the game. I played a character once who was once a titan- reduced in size and power from centuries of being frozen as a statue on a dead plane- he was really only a third-level character, but I was able to develop him however I saw fit, as long as my character development give him some sort of advantage that nobody else had.
In short, 1e does sound like it had a certain allure to it that lacks in 3e, but I believe mostly that that's an issue with the players and how the game is played, not in the rules or how it was actually set up. Any thoughts?