Old thread indeed, but it goes on to show how the original R carries on gaining friends.
I have both the R and the R2, and grab the R more often. Thinking about it, I suppose I have found why it appeals, even compared to the R2: the point is its "purity" as a picture-taking machine.
Sure enough the R2 has a lot of very appealing refinements and improvements: the splatter-finish black paint on magnesium body, the grippier covering, the steel back... all add up to a camera which appeals more to the senses. But the "purity" of the R is not only about the lack of these: it is also about the inherent ways the photographer interacts with subject through the camera.
Case in point: the exposure meters on the R and R2 work very differently. On the R, you press down the shutter release button and it goes on, and when you let go, it switches itself off after ten seconds, regardless of whether the shutter is tensioned or not. On the R2, the meter can only be switched on when the shutter is tensioned and switches itself off as soon as the shutter runs down.
For most people the revised meter system is a good thing, indicating if the shutter is tensioned or not, but sometimes I prefer to leave the shutter ran down and still use the meter, and more than often the shutter is tensioned anyway. The way I work, I personally favour the R's simplier approach, where I, the user, is in charge always.
By the way it looks, it will take a long long time before my R2 catches up with the amount of use I get out of the R.