I don't see that problem at all. I use two different browsers that are written and distributed by professionals (Chrome and Safari) on a well-supported operating system (MacOS) on reasonably modern hardware (a few MacBooks, between 3 months and 5 years old). I have yet to find a single web page that doesn't work in Chrome, and very few are not perfect in Safari.
The problem you're encountering is not caused by the web, but by trying to use unsupported / obsolete / insufficient software and hardware. What you're saying is: "I took my oxcart, tied the goat behind it, and went on the Autobahn to go to town". Sorry, in modern society oxcarts no longer work, and a goat won't survive the freeway. (The use of oxcarts here is a hat tip to Mussorgsky and Bydlo, greatest tuba solo of all orchestra literature).
What you are trying to use is not a normal PC nor a standard browser. It is thoroughly obsolete and unsupported.
There is an interesting reason for that: Smartphones rarely get very old, because (a) the hardware doesn't survive for a decade or two, and (b) the OS becomes unsupported and will refuse to run. One of the reasons for businesses to support Android/iOS apps is that the universe of possible operating environments is much smaller, and tightly controlled.
Let me give you a few nasty, cold hard facts. The market share of *BSD in desktop usage is at most a percent, probably smaller by a factor of 10 or 100. Even the market share of Linux is in the single-digit percents. The FreeBSD project has a small number of developers, which can be measured in dozens or low hundreds. The vast majority of them are unpaid.
In contrast, the teams for Chrome (at Google), Safari (at Apple) and Edge (at MS) have thousands of developers.
What you are proposing is a massive case of "tail wagging dog". No, FreeBSD can not hire an extra thousand software engineers to build a really good browser. And even if it did (if some generous person was willing to donate $250M per year), the website owners would ignore it, because their new BSD browser would be used by such a small number of users.
Let's begin by accepting reality: Two desktop OSes (Windows and Mac) and three browsers (Chrome, Safari, and Edge/IE) are de-facto the only things that exist today.
That's actually an interesting technical discussion. I think ultimately, it is not about display size, but about display resolution (information density). A modern desktop display can render at least 2K x 1.5K pixels; many of the larger ones are about 1.5x or 2x higher resolution per axis. A modern smartphone display has a similar resolution, with a slightly different aspect ratio (typically 2.5K x 1.2K pixels). That's why browsing on a phone is viable: It can deliver the same amount of information to the user; the user just needs to focus their eyes at a smaller distance.
For people my age it comes down to: What glasses do I wear (and yes, I have separate glasses for cell phones, books, laptop, desktop monitor, and driving a car).
That could easily happen. And it might be a good thing: A single platform and method for delivering information to human users. It can be delivered on a 5" device (smartphone), a 10" device (tablet), and a 20-30" device (desktop monitor), all using the same software. I know that some of my colleagues are today already using remote displays on their smartphone, so they can see their phone's screen on their desktop monitor.
Not quite. Consumers and amateurs used analog modems to connect to the web. Early on (in the early and mid 90s), the bulk of web usage was in offices. The web was designed to deliver information over a LAN (at CERN, by Tim Berners-Lee), and at that time, all machines at CERN had "fast" networks (in those days, that means 10base2, using BNC connectors and coax cables). The first web server outside of Switzerland was set up at SLAC in December 1991 (I started working there in November that year), and at that time we already had a "fast" connection between SLAC and CERN, I think 512 kilobits/s.
The web was initially designed to work in environment with sufficient bandwidth, and sufficient CPU/graphics power to display it. As it spread (from the hallways of academia and research to consumers), it co-developed with mechanisms to deliver bandwidth and graphics to its users. The use of the web over analog modems (56 kBaud) was probably the low point in the mismatch between the needs and the resources.
Correct analysis. With rare exceptions. For example, here in Northern California we had some nasty storms in the last week, and our house (which is in the hills near Silicon Valley) was without electricity for 5 days, without phone and (wired) internet for 3 days, and without normal road access for about a day or two. During that time, cell phone bandwidth dropped really low (probably dozens of kilobits/s, and intermittent), and even things like looking at the weather forecast or the road closure maps became difficult or impossible. Fortunately, the design of our communications infrastructure has redundancy built into it, and SMS and e-mails continued to work, slowly but reliably.
