KFC may have been better 20-40 years ago than it is now, but honestly I think the difference is for many years KFC was the only game in town among fried chicken chains. Now however, many chains, both those that sell full pieces of bone-in chicken (like Popeyes) and those that sell chicken sandwiches and/or chicken tenders (like Chick-Fil-A), are much more common now than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. Many of us living outside the U.S. southeast had no frame of reference of what good fried chicken, or at least good fried chicken at a large chain, tasted like.
I personally strongly prefer places that sell full bone-in pieces of chicken; to me places like Chick-Fil-A, Zaxby's, and Raising Cane's don't sell "real" chicken and I rarely go to those places. Among the "real" fast food fried chicken places, to me KFC ranks at the bottom of the list. Popeyes, Bojangles', and Church's, all of which I like a lot, are much, much better than KFC, and Pollo Campero is also distinctly better than KFC IMO. I will note that some smaller, fast casual fried chicken chains or independent restaurants, like Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken (30 locations across the U.S.) and various Nashville hot chicken places (like Howlin' Ray's and Hotville in Los Angeles and Hattie B's mostly in the southeast U.S.), are a step up from the Popeyes/Church's/Bojangles' trio, though all of them are noticeably more expensive. (Gus's has spicy fried chicken similar in spice intensity and profile to Popeyes, Church's, and Bojangles' but has crispier skin and juicier meat, while hot chicken loads up on the spices and heat to a greater degree than those aforementioned restaurants and can be addictive if you like hot and spicy foods.)
One final thought about KFC - I've always preferred the extra crispy, though sometimes it leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. (I remember that being true in the 1990s as well.)