As I said, I'd read plenty of those earlier stories, and I've read more since. They just made no real impression on me, and still don't. I'm sorry, I just don't see the appeal of the pre-Crisis Superman. He was a cardboard character with a cardboard supporting cast and his incredible (meaning that in the literal sense) powers and simplistic storylines just never interested me. I need a sense of realism in a character in order to connect with them. Probably why I was much more of a Marvel fan as a kid. And also why I can never see the appeal of Fawcett's Captain Marvel.

I guess everyone's mileage varies.
Of course, we all leave ourselves wide open when we argue that one comic book hero is more believable than another.  

Chuck Austen. Master of the uninspired concept. He was also the one who decided Nightcrawler's father was a demon, because...well...he looks a bit demonic. And he created the second Captain Britain, a character who subsequently vanished into limbo because she was completely pointless.

And it didn't stop there, as Austen tried to push the concept of several competing 'races' of mutants, like the demon-like Neyaphem (which Nightcrawler and Azazel were supposed to belong to), angel-like Cheyarafim (Warren Worthington among others) and Lupines (Maximus Lobo). Thank goodness no other writer ran with that.

I'm in agreement with Prince Hal with disliking the retconned Byrne version of Krypton. Bleak and cold, who would care that Krypton blew up. The Byrne version-Krypton deserved it!!

Now being that I grew up with the early 60s Superman family obviously gives me a warm nostalgic feel for them. But even being objective, you can see the fascinating world-building mythos that was taking place by Weisinger and his talented writing staff starting in the late 1950s. First with the intro of Brainiac, then the silver age Fortress Of Solitude. the bottle city of Kandor, the Phantom Zone, Supergirl's into, the Legion of Superheroes, the varieties of Kryptonite, Bizarro, Lori Lemaris.. many good story elements that drove hundreds of tales. 

And Krypton being a bright, futuristic world was rather common in how Americans looked to the future at that time. Generally it was portrayed that way in regular SF until the 1960s. Star Trek was part of that optimistic future view. The race to the moon that was concurrent and the rapid advance of modern conveniences and innovations gave the public hope. We'll all have flying cars, robot butlers etc, just like The Jetsons. I couldn't wait for Woody Allen's Orgasmatron from his movie Sleeper. Juxtapose that with the sterility of Byrne's Krypton and believe me, I didn't clamour to read more of John's version of that world. But I wanted instead to read more of the Jewel Mountains of Krypton, see Krypto chasing meteorites through space, see Argo City traveling through the universe under a dome.

I was also dismayed when they de-aged the Kents. It took a lot of that old-fashioned Americana out of the picture. The grey-haired mom, baking her homemade pies for the family and Jonathon Kent's sage advice worked better when he looked that he lead a full life. They were supposed to be Ma and Pa Kettle, not newlyweds

I've really never understood the concern about the Kents. I make no bones about disliking Superman for any of a zillion reasons, but they are one of the better parts of a sad character. And I honestly don't see where Superman gained anything by the Kents dying before he became Superman.