I don't think that the old logo is great either, and the update did improve on technical aspects. You don't want to have all that small text, for example. And generally, simpler logos are preferable.

But...their shtick is a rustic feel. Whatever you can say about the original logo, it did evoke that. I have a hard time seeing the new one doing that.

EDIT: I also think that this compares favorably to another controversial recent rebrand: Musk rebranding Twitter, which was generally seen as not a good idea; Twitter already had a strong brand identity. People weren't happy and Musk went right ahead with it regardless. At Cracker Barrel, the initial response was "calm down, it'll be okay", but they were willing to second-guess themselves, even though I expect that there were people there who were invested in the rebrand.

EDIT2: They'd also done smaller, more incremental changes to the logo in the past, because the "Old Country Store" text had had its typeface changed at some point in the past.

EDIT3: Here's a more-comprehensive history:

https://dwglogo.com/cracker-barrel-logo/

Kinda wish the public had a similar outrage when Fruit of the Loom modernized their logo in 2000, lol

Who gives a fuck? Let's focus on the fascist takeover happening in every city in the country, and the billionaires almost completely winning the war on the populace.

How was it awful?

Could you tell me what the heck this yellow blob shape is supposed to be?

From a purely graphic design perspective, the classic logo is too busy and doesn't scale well. The only thing it has going for it is the weirdness of the shape and the distinct color combination. It's technically a really bad logo. You may not prefer the new logo but, technically, it's a whole lot better. It's far more adaptable to newer platforms while stilling being recognizable. Now, as far as being an effective representation of the brand and if that's a corporate concern, I don't know that I can comment on that.

It was fine, Jesus Christ