That's because all those other sites are poorly built. It's not because the article's site is a brilliant example of "doing it right".
Putting bare text on the web is always going to be fast. So what. If he presented a real full-featured website with the bells and whistles that people expect today, and made it operate that fast, he'd have something to show. Instead he presents polished garbage.
Wait - what precisely do users demand from your website today? Usually I'm happy to find a website which loads quickly, is clean, and steers me in the direction of whatever I'm trying to find, personally.
My expertise is not marketing so I don't feel I could adequately answer that question but there are plenty of focus group studies which show what sort of UX works best. It's a safe bet that most of the big corporations who are already focus-grouping everything they publish, such as Disney for example, are also using focus groups to design their websites.
They're using split testing, conversion rate optimisation, and bizdev to design their sites. When something appears on a corporate website, it's there to benefit someone in the corporation, not the users (although it might benefit them as a side effect).
His site is at least full-featured article (you can load, scroll and read it, yay). Most sites I open are article sites, and they are rarely full-featured articles, because load/scroll features aren't easily accessible.
Putting bare text on the web is always going to be fast. So what. If he presented a real full-featured website with the bells and whistles that people expect today, and made it operate that fast, he'd have something to show. Instead he presents polished garbage.