I'm thinking of the International theatrical release (1982), most likely. More or less the same film by the sounds of it.
But, yes, a big part of why I prefer it is because that, having watched and loved the film in the 80s, that version was Bladerunner, and the Director's Cut was just some tedious attempt to artify a perfectly good (nay, exceptionally good) film. (Those fucking dream-like dove sequences make me angry just thinking about them.)
Also, yes, the voiceover is integral to the noir aesthetic. I had no idea that the last aerial shots were outtakes from The Shining, but that doesn't really affect my evaluation of the film. They're just visual metonyms for a future already plotted by the earlier scenes, and the fact that the shots weren't actually taken for the film doesn't bother me: I don't have much time for "integrity".
Not sure how they're s'posed to contradict the rest of the film, though. Anyone care to elaborate on that point?
I'm also not fussed that the "Deckard may be a replicant" aspect isn't a feature of the original version. It's central to the book it's based on, sure, and I get a lot of pleasure from that aspect in the book. But I am quite happy for / prefer film adaptations to be interpretations of the course rather than faithful reproductions.
The film version (versions? I can't remember what bits were chopped and changed in the Director's Cut) added another dimension to the "text" of Androids, by depicting the replicants as on a quest to meet their maker. Reading that narrative arc in concert with the characterisation of Decker and Gaff in the novel (ambiguity of Decker's status as human; Gaff's cold-stone-killer approach to retiring replicants) makes for a far more interesting meditation on the idea(s) of humanity.