You're talking about the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi. I prefer hard myself.
Its not everything. The problem is that the difference between the two is defined merely based on
technologcial realism. But ignoring technology (besides FTL and lasers...) isnt even the biggest fault of most of sci-fi. The biggest fault is ignoring
social changes and trends. So much of sci-fi is "Current Decade IN SPAAACE", and thats just annoying - its lazy. Thats why cyberpunk was so original, because it did took social changes into account. As does Shadowrun still, to an amazing degree. Just look on how much society is discussed in Augmentation or especially Wireless, and just how much thought is invested into it.
That is why I said for example Star Trek its obsolete. It never really much talked about technology besides FTL (and Beaming, maybe), or any social changes (vague utopianism, yeah, but only very vague), so its bad on principle, but also every decade it aired in had its own take on it based on how things are (technology and society wise) at that time IRL. And eventually you just cant "update" an universe anymore, you have to look for a replacement model.
And while much mil sci-fi has creative ideas, its rather trapped in this, too.
On the whole, its not a very creative subgenre, yet it dominates the American sci-fi market for a decade, or so it seems to me. Meanwhile, its British authors who lead the creative vanguard - Hamilton, Alistair, Stross, McLeod, Morgan, Asher, Banks...
(Im allowed to judge by nations, since I do so from the outside. And Germany didnt have ANY good sci-fi authors since the Weimar Republic, damnit. No, Eschenbach doesnt count, and the Perry Rhodan authors count as big negatives :p )
But my point is those people think about possible political and social changes, about how technology will aspect our life, about technology beyond just FTL and weaponry, and about how they can absolutely upturn our society. Biotechnology alone in the coming decades, if one just thinks about it - but most sci-fi 'verses and franchises just completly ignore it. And
that is whats bad. And that is why sci-fi shouldnt be about the present. The present may correct and update sci-fi, but the genre has to be more then just that.