Have you noticed that astrology books written long ago use a wider orb for aspects?

Orbs, like house systems, are a battlefield for astrologers. You are correct that many of the old astrologers used orbs that would be considered huge by today's standards, but a little perspective is in order. If we go back to ancient Greeks aspects were determined by sign. So a planet anywhere in Aries is trine a planet anywhere in Leo, square a planet anywhere in Cancer and so on. However they did note, as do the medieval and later astrologers, that the tighter the orb the more influential the aspect. So having the Sun at 1 Aries and Jupiter at 29 Sagittarius might be a trine, The Greeks didn't give it a whole lot of attention as it was too far apart at 28 degrees to be a major player in the chart. Next orbs were determined by a sphere of influence surrounding the planet. The "orb" was a circle surrounding the planet. The size of the orb varied from planet to planet and when the two spheres of two planets touched, the planets were said to be in aspect. What we call an orb, they called a moiety or half orb. William Lilly writing in 1647 said the Sun had an orb of 17 degrees. That gives it a moiety of 8.5 degrees. Jupiter has an orb of 12 degrees so a moiety of 6 degrees. So whenever Jupiter and the Sun were within 14. 5 degrees of each other (8.5 + 6) they were in orbit. Now if they were closer say within 5 degrees, this was very strong because both planets were within each others' moieties. But if they are 10 degrees apart Jupiter is within the moiety of the Sun but the Sun is not within the moiety of Jupiter. Therefore the aspect is weaker or of less influence. Somewhere along the line, the word moiety was dropped and orb substituted for both concepts, and the size of the orbs were not determined by the planets but by the aspects. The orb of a square is this; the orb of a sextile is that. The logic for this switch escapes me but it becomes more prominent as the influence of aspects grows amongst astrologers. In medieval astrology aspects were nowhere near as important as they are to today's astrologers. Also old astrologers made a big deal of the difference between applying and separating aspects - something that is only given lip service today. In practice, it is better to get a lot out of a few things than a little out of a lot of things. Looking for aspects, minor aspects and other such things simply clutter up the chart and the thinking. I've seen really good astrologers go on and on, accurately, about the influence of a single tight aspect. And I've seen borderline incompetents go on and on and on about so many different aspects that all the client is left with is confusion. Use orbs of 3 - 4 degrees at most and then bore in on what they mean. Look at the houses the planets rule and how this figures into the overall chart. Keep picking apart those few aspects and you'll get more out of a chart than you thought possible. There might be some exceptions, for example let's say there is an angular conjunction where the planets are separated by 3 degrees and the third aspecting planet is only within 4 degrees of one of them - well then use both planets in the conjunction. For the most part look at the aspects last and use few of them. You'll surprise yourself. I'm not saying that wider orbs do not have influence. I'm only saying that we should concentrate on the most important things and leave for later, if we bother with them at all, the unimportant things.