Most of such designs want to load things dynamically, which always makes things slower.
I was referring to responsive design. This basically means a different layout is used depending on the browser window width. It makes absolutely sense to use a different layout for small displays or maybe an intermediate width for tablets. cnn.com does more than that. It scales images and content absolutely pixelwise. This requires of course much more processing power.
I guess noone has asked for this kind of stuff on ghisler.com. Technologically there is a lot of space between the current page and a page like cnn.com.
Before thinking about design and technology one should think about content and information architecture of the page. I think there is a lot of space for improvement and would be even more important than a visual overhaul.
What do I mean by content?
Q: Why does it take so long to launch the 32-bit version on my 486?
A: Total Commander needs to load the OLE2 libraries to do drag&drop from and to explorer, and to show context menus and property sheets. These libraries are very big, and take a lot of time and space to load. You may prefer to use the 16-bit version on a 386 or 486, since it doesn't need the OLE2 libraries. However, it also doesn't support drag and drop from and to explorer, and does show its own simplified context menus.
So it seems this section of the page is not really maintained.
What do I mean with information architecture?
Just some examples:
Total Commander, Version 8.52a, is a Shareware file manager for Windows® 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10, and Windows® 3.1.
Is this the main message that should be communicated to the visitor? Why is it so important to mention every single Windows version?
Why are all those links to other language pages so prominently listed in the navigation?
Why is the forum mentioned as a link instead of an integral part of the site (that shouldn't be a technical decision)?
Why is the wiki not linked directly?