mambark:
Am I the only one who thinks it's way better than the old formula?

Yes I think you are and when you actually look at just the numbers, I am not sure it is that much better...smell and taste aside (both of which are awful with the new bag)...
Clearly the new formula does not taste as good based on my own experience and all the rest of the feedback out here. I think the cost to benefit of the change is not lining up - meaning I believe the new formula is not that much healthier for you (benefit), but the taste is not nearly as good (cost).
Lets compare Chocolate old (serving size 48g) v. new (new is a smaller serving size of 42g). The smaller serving size seems like a ploy to keep some numbers from appearing worse right? I mean if the old formula of choc had 150 calories in a 48g scoop and the new formula has 160 in a 42g scoop, then how many calories would the new have if the scoop was 48g...? I'd do the math here to find the calories per gram and then add that back in, but you get my overall point:
Calories per serving - old = 150
Calories per serving - new = 160 (note more calories - smaller serving size too)
Sodium per serving - old = 100
Sodium per serving - new = 150
Protein per serving - old = 18
Protein per serving - new = 17
Sugar per serving - old = 9
Sugar per serving - new = 6 (again note smaller serving size)
Fiber per serving - old = 3
Fiber per serving - new = 6 (again note smaller serving size)
Cholesterol per serving - old = 15
Cholesterol per serving - new = 1
All the vitamin and mineral readings (calcium, folic acid, vit B's, etc) appear the same...So not a tremendous improvement in a lot of areas, especially when you consider that the serving size is smaller in the new formula so the numbers that are higher, again like calories, would be higher than 160 if a 48g scoop was used and not a 42g....