D.Draker

Are you sure you read that article yourself? Doesn't look like it. "21.5.5. Request Forgery with Version Negotiation "Clients that are able to present a spoofed source address on a packet can cause a server to send a Version Negotiation packet (Section 17.2.1) to that address. The absence of size restrictions on the connection ID fields for packets of an unknown version increases the amount of data that the client controls from the resulting datagram. The first byte of this packet is not under client control and the next four bytes are zero, but the client is able to control up to 512 bytes starting from the fifth byte. No specific countermeasures are provided for this attack, though generic protections (Section 21.5.6) could apply. In this case, ingress filtering [BCP38] is also effective." https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9000/

And MSFN is absolutely right! https://msfn.org/board/topic/186094-google-quic-is-vulnerable-to-cyber-criminal-activity-creates-a-‘black-hole’-that-hackers-can-exploit/

"While touted as an alternative to TCP, QUIC poses several security concerns for network operators. Standard network security appliances cannot easily identify QUIC traffic, which makes this network protocol vulnerable to cyber criminal activity." "Why do Network Security Teams Not Like Google QUIC? Despite its perceived positives, QUIC could inadvertently have a negative impact on network security. That’s because security appliances like firewalls and network sensors typically are not able to access information they had previously relied on with legacy TCP sessions. This creates a ‘black hole’ that hackers can exploit. Here’s the main problem: Standard network security devices can’t determine the QUIC application protocol, viewing it like layer 4 UDP traffic. While browsers and supported web servers can differentiate between QUIC traffic and other traffic, standard network security like firewalls can’t. This means firewalls are less effective at detecting incoming threats, putting network security at risk. To complicate the challenge for cyber threat hunters, Google revises its protocol frequently, and threat detection tools must catch up with these ever-changing standards. There are other issues. QUIC, similar to TLS 1.3, applies its encryption at the transport layer and not in the higher layers. Hence, it encrypts all transport information, which can virtually eliminate the attack surface that TCP offers. Plus, it’s increasingly difficult to measure and analyze QUIC traffic using reporting tools because, again, firewalls and standard network sensors don’t recognize it.  This is a plus for consumer privacy but causes significant challenges for those responsible for protecting our communications networks." source. https://netquestcorp.com/google-quic-and-network-security/

Disable at startup.

Nothing surprising, newer laptops are thinner, nowhere to place a somewhat decent cooler. With that technology level, it should be 25 degrees at max! My Kaby runs idle at 23 and load at 50 max. And those desktop CPUs are known to run hotter. All that with the supplied thin cooler!

BTW, the CPU is indeed not impressive! Only 29% faster than the cheap 2013 Haswell Pentium. The Haswell era didn't have that bloated OS at that time, so no surprise at all. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G3470-vs-Intel-Core-i5-1335U/m28614vsm2065642

Those newer gens have Intel "software guard", turn that off, also. From what I know, some software makers use it to fingerprint your PC for "licensing" purposes.

I had some weird cases of slowness on Haswell, it was related to HPET, basically try to turn off everything you don't need in the BIOS. Sometimes even turning off virtualisation helps. I think it's more poor mobo design related rather than CPU.

Silverfall 2006, the famous one, made in France! Available in English, too, runs on GT710 fine, uses Physx.

Whom exactly do you call "inhospitable"? I don't think @Dave-H and @Tripredacus would agree with such labelling of MSFN, I'm asking you [very politely] for the 3579692369239298 time, please don't try to ignite hostilities over and over again. Everyone here is having a nice chat. Quoting your off-topic attack in full, just in case.

I asked the director of our big PC store about the sales, he said: "it's the same, basically". People still buy lots of PCs with the OS already preinstalled, esp. laptops. German Fujitsu Notebook LIFEBOOK U7613, their ultra-light LIFEBOOK U9413, LIFEBOOK U9313X (ultra-light, silver-white convertible) are very popular here, they come Windows 11 Pro already installed.

Oh, sorry, indeed, how could I?!

It was a joke. Clearly, the title is misspelled, not to mention the overall misleading, clickbait style name of the topic and improper, poor English grammar. No articles to support that "theory", nothing.

Did you try this website? A huge drivers collection. https://driverscollection.com/

It's the latest "gaming trend". They reissue old games with artificially bumped up reqs. Probably deserves a dedicated topic on how to deal with it. I don't know how many gamers we have here,

Do you know how to fight a smartphone that turns on by itself? Added: Most frequently when it's on charge.

On some driver bundles it's simply not detected correctly by GPU-Z. But if the programme folder is present in the right location, the software will work. ProgramFiles/NVIDIA Corporation/Physx (for 32 bit OS). ProgramFiles (x86)/NVIDIA Corporation/Physx (for 64 bit OS).

I'm not surprised. It means you got a re-issued 555 disguised as 710. I once bought a card that was named "GTS250", in fact it turned out to be a bit overclocked older model 9800GTX. Nothing to worry about. Those are of similar performance level.

Don't replace 'em, don't even think of it! I did, and it was a waste of time/money. Bluray is "remastered" by id*ots. It's too bright and acid, it loses all the original charm.

I forgot to tell, and the post editing is rather glitchy due to the forum soft issues, so don't run blaming me for "quadro posting". In 1999, I bought the first Bond Collection on DVD. Oh boy, I was so disappointed with the 480p US quality! Those were made in NTSC and the usual low res. American standard. Later on, I had to buy the same collection edition again! I had purchased the same version, but for the Great Britain and EU market, it was night and day difference! (somewhere in 2000)

We don't have DVDs for decades, apparently technology comes to the US much later. DVDs were popular here in 1998-2003. In 2004 people already wanted better quality, and the American "import" DVDs were locked to NTSC region, also of much lesser quality: only 480p in US vs 576p PAL (UK and European). It's a drastic difference! Starting 2006 and onwards, bluray.

Not true. Official Bluray Specs for good playback: Core 2 Duo and 8400GS, which are from the year 2006 and XP. I'm not talking about 4k bluray. Minimum specs are going ever lower! Here you can familiarize yourself with them. "Minimum: Intel* 965, G33, G35, G45 graphics software decoder Intel Core 2 Duo. GeForce 7600 GT, GeForce 7800 GTX 512, GeForce 7900" https://superuser.com/questions/37252/minimum-hardware-spec-for-playing-blu-ray-disks

We'd like to see it.

Of course Vista, what kind of question is that? Better title's name would be smth like "Why Windows Vista is so good?" XP is an OS from another era, hard to compare at all.

Between those two, one simply needs to choose the older release (TITAN X PASCAL), to get much better driver performance with Vista.