Of course releases are slow..
They are feature complete, do the job well and aren't chasing constantly changing standards or dealing with complex data in a changing security landscape.
That said, I agree that there's a lot to be said for stability, there should be different streams for browsers, one with feature updates and another concentrating with just bug and security fixes. I think that Mozilla have tried this with their esr(?) releases.
How can you say that the likes of vim and emacs are so much better than modern software that "feels like reinventing the wheel for the sake of it" when just in the previous paragraph you lauded Emacs' ability to render HTML.
Finally, yes if you have something written in a language or environment that can only be learned about by trawling through archive.org it should be re-written. The application is pretty much un-maintainable and the underlying infrastructure is obsolete and will therefore be crumbling. What happens if the execution environment has security issues or does not function in the next version of $OS?