1. I disagree - the droid adds to the menace and makes for a great visual.
2. It's more or less the same principle as with Han shooting first but in reverse, because Ben isn't supposed to be an unscrupulous scoundrel, he's supposed to be a wise Jedi master - in the original, Vader comes in with his saber already ignited, whereas in ANH:R, Vader ignites his sabre in reaction to Ben igniting it first, so Ben make the first gesture of aggression (and with Ben's character that's just wrong).
3. I disagree very strongly - the dinos are obvious CGI, whereas the Wolfman is just that, a Wolfman, real existing object.
4. Yes, we know Tarkin was blown up but you don't seem to understand, that editing isn't just about conveying the information clearly and in the right order - seeing Tarkin's face just before the explosion offers emotional pay-off to the viewer.
Yes, ESB:R will be 720p, but sourced from the shitty 2004 transfer - so I'll say it again: with a proper restoration, the OOT of course has the potential to be of much higher picture and audio quality than the current Blu-Rays (and by extention anything that uses them as a source, including the future Revisited projects, as well as my Despecialized Editions of course, which is a big part of the reason I would welcome an official restoration and don't consider the DeEd an adequate replacement of it either).
But either way, you somehow keep missing the point - all these things you responded to were the minor additional points in my post - the main point was here:
the OOT has great, oscar-winning visual effects, which, unlike modern CGI, have great historical value, so they are more fun to watch - for me anyway, so for me personally, the movie loses like half of its entertainment value just by having the original effects replaced by mundane CGI, but I already said that before. And of course, if you just watch it for the story, this argument gets weaker and some people would say that the CGI effect are more realistic and therfore better, but film-making is an art-form and in art, the technique used is just as important as the content - like, take an oil painting of a horse and a color photograph of a horse - they both show a horse and the photograph shows the horse more realistically, but does that mean, that the photo is better art?
And you completely ignored it.