A few modern enhancements would be a nice addition to fix the overly wide width and font selection but they certainly aren't required.
Ah, 1999. A simpler web. Transporting the build of those simpler times to the world of today would deliver instant gratification.
Both are very rare nowadays, and have been for quite a while, where "responsive" means "one of X configurations, and _we_ choose which" and scaling text often has the effect of breaking the visual appearance, and thus, in a visual-first mindset, the UX, and more often than not also the functionality in general.
> Well, the overly wide width can easily be mitigated by resizing
> your viewport; this is truly responsive web.
All these websites that work on X*Y screen size of J, K, and L devices are the result of "web developers" who have a J, K, or L device with an X*Y screen trying to make a flyer. And I work in the industry, albeit on the server side.
I tried to dig into my own emotions to figure out why, and I realized that I am annoyed by the fact that the second-most comment (at my time of viewing) was completely unrelated to the content, and drew attention towards some details of the presentation that do not really have a lot of value.
I worry that this opinion will not be broadly accepted here at HN, but I am annoyed by the upwelling of opinion that a web experience is only valuable if it is presented in an experience that meets the observers definition of "performant" or "fast" or "JavaScript-free".