Nice to see the comments!
Yeah there is plenty of power in these old computers to pull off the simple user interfaces that are popular right now. I think it's funny how the trend has gone back to bold colors, blocky designs and full screen programs, all the things we were limited to in the 80s.
I did write it in C, so if I did it in assembler, it would have been smaller and faster.
And, no, I didn't retro bright my system. Bought the one in the video from some 20 something dude in Chicago selling off his uncle's system. Seems it was always kept under a cover, so no sun damage!
It's also funny and a bit sad that despite these extreme "simplifications" of UI, software still seems neither faster nor smaller...
It drives me crazy.
My "favorite" anecdote when it comes to the inefficiency creep:
One of my favorite text-editors is an Amiga editor called FrexxEd. I ported it to run on AROS, a portable re-implementation of the AmigaOS API. AROS can run hosted on Linux with X.
On my laptop, booting the Linux hosted version of AROS, that initializes the full GUI etc., with the startup-sequence (a simple shell script that gets started on boot) set to start FrexxEd at the end lets me "boot to FrexxEd" faster than I can start even the terminal-only build of Emacs on the same machine...
http://www.filewatcher.com/m/pcc12c.zip.175811-0.html
It came with a demo game, which was a Caterpillar clone which ran in text mode. (Unfortunately the archive above doesn't have the source, only the executable.) This game used loops for timing.
When I ran it on my high-end 486, at a whole 66MHz, the screen would flicker madly for a couple of seconds and then the game would exit. In that time it had run through all three lives with no user input.
That 486 was at least an order of magnitude faster than the 4.77MHz 8088 that the game had been written for. And modern machines are a good couple of orders of magnitude faster still. I wonder how long that game would take to run on the desktop I'm typing this on...
edit for typo
Edit: plus it lured him in here :)
It's quite fascinating that systems like GEOS with "proper" windows etc. looks more dated than a menu system similar to ones you might have found on a real C64 app (e.g. Koala Painter had a full screen full of rectangular "icons" to pick tools etc.)
One of the ones that impressed me at the time, was the GUI of The Final Cartridge III (the irony of there being a 3rd "Final" cartridge...) [1] which had "proper" windowing system in ROM with a look that was inspired by AmigaOS 1.x. Unfortunately pretty much no software supported it, so the GUI bit went mostly unused (wasn't typically why you'd buy it anyway - these cartridges were "freezers" used to pirate software and/or for their built in fast loaders and machine code monitors)
Keep in mind that Apple made the Macintosh in 1984 and had to use a lot of expensive hardware to get the GUI to work. Then a year later GEOS was developed for the Commodore 64 that made almost the same GUI and apps for a fraction of the cost of a Macintosh.
When Windows was released in 1985 it ran on 8088 DOS PCs.
Over the years Windows and Macintoshes have added feature after feature and require state of the art systems in order to function properly. Most people don't even need the functions that got added, and it slows down things with each feature added.
I like the fact that GNU/Linux can run on older hardware with less RAM and run faster as well. It is developed differently than Windows or Mac OSX is developed.
When I had a Commodore 64 in the 1980s, I got laughed at by people who had an Apple II or IBM PC, but we could only afford a Commodore 64 because our family was poor. The C64 BASIC was primitive, but it forced me to learn machine language to get stuff to work.
For anyone interested in another modern & capable operating system for the C64 I would really recommend Adam Dunkels Contiki - http://www.contiki-os.org/
Great job.