I readily admit that I'm both a traditionalist and a contrarian -- the two personality traits often feed off one another, especially when confronted with neophiliac iconoclasm, of which there is much in our hobby (and always has been, lest anyone foolishly think I'm singling out "kids today" as the source of this trend). So, it raises my hackles to hear someone suggest that level limits "make no sense" or alignment is "stupid" or ascending AC is "easier to use" or any one of dozens of other claims about the supposed superiority of later edition rules mechanics of D&D over those of the past. I won't for a second deny that, for some gamers, such things may be true, but I do deny -- vociferously so -- that it's true for all gamers, because I did and do use most of these "bad" rules in my campaigns and somehow manage to have a great deal of fun.
Want to drop alignment from your campaign? Go for it. Find that you need some kind of skill system to differentiate two 5th-level fighters from one another? More power to you. Think 1-minute combat rounds are too abstract for your tastes? Gotcha. You don't need anyone's permission to make these changes, least of all mine, and I don't necessarily think any particular change to D&D's original rules takes one outside the bounds of "old school" -- and, even if I do, so what? Grab a copy of The Arduin Grimoire and you'll probably find that Dave Hargrave disagreed with me, just as Gary Gygax disagreed with him. Believe it or not, I'm cool with that.
Just, please, don't make the mistake of implying that your preference for some later mechanical innovation is anything more than that -- a preference. Many of the rules you deride as "bad," "broken," "wrong," "stupid," "embarrassing" or any number of other unpleasant adjectives aren't so in any objective sense and neither an appeal to "I've always thought so and I've been playing since 1978" nor the tendentious metaphor of game mechanics as technology will make them otherwise. And, again, that's just fine. Speaking only for myself, if I felt more people actually got this, I'd probably be a lot less defensive about many of the traditional rules of D&D than I typically am (though you're still never going to get me to say much nice about Dragolance).
Since this is clearly a rant, in accordance with the Joesky Protocol -- and my own addendum to it -- I offer the following. The text in the quote box below is hereby designated Open Game Content via the Open Game License.
Dwimmersmite: Named both for its purpose and its place of origin, this sword +1, +2 versus spellcasters is a sapient weapon, Lawful in alignment and having INT 12 and Psyche 12. Dwimmersmite can speak and it understands both Common and Elvish, in addition to its alignment tongue and being able to read magic. The sword's motivation is to destroy magic-users and elves, which grants it the ability to paralyze such foes with a successful hit (save vs. spells to resist). In addition, Dwimmersmite can detect evil (20' range), invisible or hidden objects and creatures (20' range), and secret doors (10' range, usable thrice per day). The sword also grants its wielder clairvoyance, as per the magic-user spell of the same name, usable three times per day.
Given its high intelligence and psyche, Dwimmersmite is a very willful weapon, often overpowering its wielder, which it then uses as its "body" to achieve its singular goal of eliminating elves and magic-users from the world. Once, the sword distinguished between Chaotic and other types of spellcasters, but, in the centuries since its forging, it has been hardened in its views and no longer makes such distinctions. In Dwimmersmite's mind, all elves and magic-users are suspect and thus its foes -- the consequences be damned. Needless to say, the weapon frequently gets its wielder into much trouble and it has been many years since it was last seen in the hands of anyone in civilized lands.