I do as well consider UGF as on old technology. The major problem I see are people from the current generation trying to use the old technology with the assumption that it will work like the new and essentially 'suck up all the waste from under the gravel' and from there it *poofs* out of existence. Truth is most people that didn't grow up using them don't understand how they work or how to maintain them. That's why pet stores hate them, because people bring in water tests with nitrates off the charts (resulting from never siphoning the gravel and waste getting trapped underneath). I don't think you can get away with over feeding or overstocking using that kind of filtration either, and bottom line, some people have too many fish. It's much easier imo to siphon the gravel and use hob filters for tanks under 75 gallons. I just don't like the idea that waste could be trapped under there that you can't see. At least with hob you can look in the box and see what has been floating around in your tank.
If it works for you and your fish and you don't mind putting in extra work if need be, then that's all that matters.
Hello; I agree that any filter system needs to be operated properly to be effective. It is also clear that some fish keepers are not aware of how filtration actually works. I recall a post in which the OP thought that because the excess food that had been put into a tank was picked up by the filter intake that the filter had "taken care of it". The operational parameters of whatever system used need to be understood.
I do not look at it as an either/or situation. I will continue to set up some tanks with UGF, but will usually have an HOB in operation at the same time. I also vaccuum gravel as much as posible around the rooted plants. In some setups there may only be a sponge filter operated by air.
I am reluctant to discard a good tool simply because it is not the newest technology available and had thought this was the implication of some posts. Perhaps I misread the intent of those posts.