Well, not really. Graphic design isn’t art— it’s a communication strategy using text, images and layout to convey information to people — often purely visually with visual hierarchy, gestalt, color, etc. Lacking originality only really matters with branding, avoiding copyright infringement, or if existing cultural norms interfere with the message— like you’re obviously re-using something without deliberately making a reference to it as part of the message.

The much more important question for a graphic designer is: what exactly are you trying you communicate about yourself and your portfolio by invoking windows XP? Because right now, technical competence is about the closest I can get and I really don’t see the association. I think what they’re probably trying to do is evoke nostalgia among potential tech industry clients as a freelancer, and to be fair, the intended audience is always a big part of the equation.

If I was art directing, I probably wouldn’t bring them in for an interview — but I’ll bet they aren’t advertising themselves to art directors.

> Literally, I could do this

The classic refrain. Implementation is the easiest part of design work. It looks better than XP did, and it should— that’s one key skill that a designer should have. Nobody hiring a designer will care if they can accurately recreate the wonkiness of XP’s interface. And nobody is impressed that a developer can implement this because that’s a developer’s job. I’m genuinely impressed when a developer’s website has solid type design and a thoughtful informational hierarchy, but that’s not even the bare minimum required fora designer. Having done both, I think deciding exactly what goes on the screen/paper is the harder part. It takes longer and you’ve got a much more nebulous path to success.