Hence the caveat "Aside from the loading times," :)

The "instantly" refers to user input: clicking a button, typing, or moving the mouse was as fast as it could possibly get because of how close the OS was to the bare metal, with no fluff bogging down the experience. Simply put, there were no wasted frames, as there were none to waste. Nowadays, at the very least, you get a couple millisecond of latency. That was not the case here.

Also, this is a machine from NINETEEN EIGHTY F//G FIVE, and it's still probably faster than your average PC running Windows 11.

▲

emj an hour ago | parent [-]

The GUI was fast because it was fixed layout, MUI on the Amiga was slow as well. We tend to go that way to get UI that is easy to create. You see the same in all GUI libraries the more CPU you have the more you use it.

▲

vidarh an hour ago | parent [-]

MUI was slow because it layered on a crazy amount of configurability. You didn't need things to get slow with resizeable/dynamic layouts even then.

	▲	amiga386 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		MUI was slow because it was written in C and went all-in on BOOPSI, as well as supporting fully dynamic layout. It could likely have been faster, but the sort of people who paid for it were also the sort of people who bought CPU accelerators.