driftingbadger17 said:Look, if your Windows Experience index is telling you that your graphics card is sitting at a 6.1, your disk is at a 5.9, and your processor is hitting a 3.4—you don't need to go out and waste money on some overpriced software that's just going to tell you your CPU is a bottleneck and that it’s time for an upgrade. I mean, you already have the data right there. There's really no point in paying someone else to tell you what your own computer is already saying. Look, for the average user, I guess the Windows Experience index is enough to figure out which component is dragging everything else down—it's probably sufficient for that.
It’s like when you just need a calculator to add two numbers—you don't exactly need to go out and buy the most powerful supercomputer on the planet to get the job done. I guess the Windows Experience index is actually a pretty useful thing for the average user—at least if they know what they're looking at.
GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2 ok
So, how do we actually define the average user? Is it just that person who goes out and buys a basic typewriter for... $500 Is this for someone shopping at a Walmart or just an average user who knows their way around a computer—but doesn't really care about top-tier performance?
Look, the general consensus when you're getting into computers is pretty simple—do your homework. The Windows Experience index might tell you that your hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in your rig—which is what people told me, too—but honestly, the drive speed wasn't even my main issue. For me, it was all about the RAM. I mean, what’s the point? You go out and buy an SSD thinking it'll solve everything, then you try to open a massive project in Photoshop and—surprise, surprise—the whole system still crawls.
If you’re really planning to judge a computer based on its Windows Experience index, then honestly—you might as well just go buy a Mac and call it a day.
Honestly, common sense is probably the best guide you'll ever find when it comes to upgrading your PC.
I’m a sucker for disaster movies—it feels like it’s been forever since we got a decent one—but based on this trailer, I have a feeling this is going to be absolute garbage 🤣
They don't even run Mayday or Seconds from Disaster on National Geographic anymore 😛
Keith Jones36 said:Look, Ripley and Connor are serious characters... specifically within the context of sci-fi films. Neither of them are professional soldiers or cops, and neither belongs to some organized squad; they both operate as individuals.
Ultimately, we're talking about characterization, not preparedness. Despite her issues with drugs and PMS, this woman in Sabotage is still superior to Alijeki or the Terminator.
Just try viewing her as a positive character in the film, flaws and all.
.
Look, where did I ever say Ripley and Connor were "serious" characters? I said they were well-designed characters.
The woman from Sabotage is superior? In what way? By how many times she manages to cram "fuck" into a single sentence?
Besides, you completely missed the point of my post.
Keith Jones36 said:Well, that actually is the entire plot of the film. That’s the one thing that keeps you engaged—barely—to find out who the killer is, even though the title pretty much tells you someone from the team did it.
If this weren't a "woman's movie," it would have been over in ten minutes.
And what you're saying isn't even sexism. Women simply don't belong in those environments. Among men, there are instinctive codes of conduct and mutual respect.
Women tend to be more prone to being underhanded and manipulative.
- .
Look, I wasn't even talking about character here—I'm talking about physical readiness. A woman just can't simply be part of a team like that.
If you want to talk about women, look at Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor in T2. Those are actually well-written female characters because they’re shown having weaknesses too.
But movie characters like this woman in Sabotage? I just can't take them seriously, and honestly, they completely ruin the movie for me.🤷
I caught this one a few days ago, and honestly—Arnold Schwarzenegger had way better movies back in the day.
To be fair, the whole movie was pretty much ruined by that female lead. Her acting was just terrible—all that "f*** you bitch, I'll shut you down completely" attitude was so forced even Michelle Rodriguez would probably cringe watching it.🙄
Look, I don't want to sound sexist, but realistically, how is a woman supposed to be part of some hardcore undercover DEA or rogue S.W.A.T. team? Failures like that generally just wreck the vibe of any movie for me. I'm not saying women should be chained to a kitchen or anything, but in the real world, a job like that would be physically overwhelming for a woman...
It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around how irritatingly bad this woman is. She’s an absolute mediocrity—actually, maybe even worse than that.
Yet somehow, over the last decade, everyone just decided to elevate her to the heavens—not to mention she was one of the highest-paid actresses out there for a while. I mean, seriously, why? Why does that even happen?
It’d be pretty cool if they just filmed one more season—you know, just for kicks. Something for the fans. I mean, I’ll never get over David Duchovny leaving 😢
We’re probably never seeing a show like this again 😢 I guess Fringe is okay, but it doesn't even come close to The X-Files.
Michelle Long6 said:I mean, it’s just plain tacky and rude to call someone an idiot right after they pass away, regardless of how it happened. I guess if we were talking about people who take their own lives, some might call them weak, or label addicts as morons who asked for it... but in a moment like this, you really should show some respect for the deceased and their family and friends. They know what he went through and how he lived way better than any of us ever could. It’s just basic decency—not that many people seem to have heard of etiquette lately. I doubt anyone would be typing out "idiot" if it were their own closest loved one, right?
Man, the way people talk on this forum... what I wrote was actually pretty "light" by most standards, I guess. 🙂
Look, I get where you're coming from, but still—I didn't say this to his family's face. I posted it on a forum where everyone is supposed to have the right to their own opinion without breaking the rules. It’s not like we’re sitting in a church or something. 🙂
I still think the guy was a total moron, IMO. I'll never understand that crowd. He had everything—the talent, the fame, enough money to last several lifetimes—but NO, that's not enough. Instead, let's just dive headfirst into hedonism and FAKIN' HEROIN...
I really respected him as an actor. There's no denying he had massive talent—but honestly? I'm not going to sit here and say I'm mourning his passing. He might have been a great actor, but given how he went out, I think most people are just going to remember him as a jerk.
They spend an entire year hyping up Smaug, and then—surprise, surprise—absolutely nothing happens with him in the end.
I guess it’s one of those rare movies that actually managed to get me hooked. I usually stay pretty well-informed, though—waiting for reviews and checking out theater screenings, or just waiting for the torrent so I can save some cash.
Robert Cox46 said:I have to admit, I was expecting a bit more from the ending. The whole movie is actually pretty well put together, but the finale felt a little weak. She dies in a transport headed for Auschwitz, and her mother and brother supposedly end up in a camp—they just vanish without a trace. We didn't actually see any of that happen on screen. Maybe the production budget was just too thin, or maybe the director intentionally wanted to skip over the horrors the girl went through—I don't know.
I guess it’s similar to when an American director tries way too hard to be "artistic" and just misses the mark entirely.
I mean, I think Ashton Kutcher did a pretty good job, but they totally skipped over the most interesting parts of Steve Jobs' career. They left out the whole origin story of Pixar and the work on Toy Story, plus they completely ignored the era of the iPod, iPhone, and iPad—and honestly, they made Steve Jobs seem way too soft.
Karen Ward2 said:Are you sure that's actually a zombie movie?
Fair point. It’s basically just a family drama about moving back to your hometown. I mean, how does anyone even look at 28 Weeks Later and think it's a zombie flick? 😲
Anyway, for me, 28 Days/Weeks Later is easily one of the best movies out there when it comes to the whole zombie genre.
And now someone try telling me that Hollywood hasn't gone down the drain... I mean, what's even the point of all these remakes? ...I guess it's just because there are still enough idiots out there willing to watch them and line the pockets of exploiters who prey on people's lack of intelligence...
Oh please, oh almighty prophet of movies and the entire film industry—go ahead and punish anyone who doesn't share your impeccable taste. 🙄
Seriously though, if they can make a buck off a remake, why wouldn't they?
Watched it last night. It’s your typical piece of American patriotic propaganda—though I will say, that part where they drag the old lady across the floor and she swears by her flag? That was honestly peak cinema. Because, apparently, it’s perfectly logical for a person in that moment to care solely about loyalty to the country rather than, I don't know, their OWN DAMN FAMILY.
There are a few decent action sequences in there. I dig how Gerard Butler handles himself against the bad guys, but the whole way the Koreans attacked Washington, D.C., and seized the White House is just... poorly written.
I can even look past the suicide bombers, the commandos, and the machine guns mounted on garbage trucks.
But how an unidentified aircraft could just end up cruising right through the middle of Washington, D.C.—which should logically be the most heavily guarded city in the USA—is something I just don't fucking get.