Alex Plantema wrote:
>I uploaded it to this group's files area. It's from XP Home SP 3.
>I zipped it to preserve the original date and time.

Thank you so much, Alex. I'll go get it.

Lotta

loro wrote:
  > Hi,
  >
  > My AV went berserk, and I did too, and I let it delete dmusic.sys . I
  > googled and found that a missing dmusic.sys can stop Windows from
  > working, so now I don't dare to reboot. I don't want to download
  > system files from the net. Does anyone know where to find it on the
  > XP installation CD? It's in one of those cabs, right? Or maybe
  > someone could send me a copy of theirs. That would be great.  I'm on
  > XP Home if that makes any difference. The path is
  > C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\dmusic.sys .
  >
  > TIA
  > Lotta

Lotta,

If Alex P. upload doesn't help I found copies in both these folders;

C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\DMusic.sys
C:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache\dmusic.sys

Perhaps you may have 1 of them.

·············································
ºvº SL_day# 050 - created 2010.02.19_16.28.32

    Better to do a little well, than a great deal badly done.
   • Socrates

   € hrs €  hsavage € pobox € com

  >

Harvey wrote:
>If Alex P. upload doesn't help I found copies in both these folders;
>
>C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\DMusic.sys
>C:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache\dmusic.sys
>
>Perhaps you may have 1 of them.


Actually, it turned out I didn't need it. Maybe I looked for it in
system32 instead of system32\drivers\ . When I was going to put
Alex's file there it turned out there already was one. So it seems
Avira didn't do (or manage to do) any of the things it said. I was
pretty stressed out because something worked the processor to its max
and everything slowed down. I was afraid I would have to reboot,
which I'm told the worse thing to do when you think you have a virus.

Eventually everything froze up and I had to hit the reboot button on
the case. Then I really had it. I peculiar antivirus-like app called
Security Tool popped up. It spawned new windows and forced me to
click buttons all the time. I checked for odd processes in Task
Manager and googled them and it turned out I had _ex-08.exe. Followed
cleaning instructions and the Security Tool went away, but the
processor still worked like mad when I connected to the internet.
Sophos Anti-Rootkit found monnid32.exe in the startup folder. Now
things seem to have cooled down. I just wonder what they had time to do.

Worth to mention is that I uninstalled my firewall the other day
because it was causing too much trouble. I've read a lot of articles
claiming that the FW in the router is enough for threats from
outside. I wonder if it was just a coincidence that I got my first
real virus when I didn't run a software FW?

Anyway, thanks for your help, guys. Even if it turned out I didn't
need your file Alex, it made me feel secure to have it, made me act a
little more rationally, so it helped. And boy was I happy for my
little Netbook. Every time I've had computer problems before I have
only had the one computer. That has always been the worst, fearing
that I won't be able to google and ask for help. As long as one can
access the net, everything will eventually be well again.

Now I'm going to connect and send this. Hopefully the processor won't
hit 100%. Touch wood.

Lotta

loro wrote:
> Worth to mention is that I uninstalled my firewall the other day
> because it was causing too much trouble. I've read a lot of articles
> claiming that the FW in the router is enough for threats from
> outside. I wonder if it was just a coincidence that I got my first
> real virus when I didn't run a software FW?

Scary.
I got whacked about a year ago with all kinds of assaults.
Although I have been using ZoneAlarm for years there were times when I
had it disabled.

I now use ZA, Avast, and SUPEREAntiSpyware.

ZA routinely blocks unauthorized access and Avast has found more than
one Trojan attached to bogus emails and web sites.

I know there are lots of AV/Fireall combos which can be used and you
will get more than one recommendations.
Maybe mine works great, maybe I have just been lucky.

I hope things get back to normal for you soon.

-Mike
www.EpicRoadTrips.us

Mike Breiding - Morgantown WV wrote:
> I now use ZA, Avast, and SUPEREAntiSpyware.

I have never ever had any malware of any kind (not counting the Netgear
card installation that so ruined my system, I had to install from
scratch). But then I refuse to run a "modern", "comfortable" OS that
just needs to be installed from its original CD and connected to the net
and that searches for, runs, and installs countless viruses all by
itself. On my Win98 I have to do all those virus installs manually
myself. Suits me fine.

Axel

Mike Breiding wrote:
>I now use ZA, Avast, and SUPEREAntiSpyware.
>
>ZA routinely blocks unauthorized access and Avast has found more than
>one Trojan attached to bogus emails and web sites.

Do you have the Paid version of Avast?

>I know there are lots of AV/Fireall combos which can be used and you
>will get more than one recommendations.
>Maybe mine works great, maybe I have just been lucky.

Maybe mine did too, as long as I kept them installed... :-o

I had Sunbelt. Before that I think it was Comodo. Now I'm trying a
new one from PrivacyWare that seems less of a resource hog and
haven't caused any programs to lock up or crash yet. I'm disappointed
though. It felt very nice without the FW. Maybe my router is crap.
What do I know? Or maybe the trojan had been lurking for a long time
and first now downloaded something that made me take notice? Fact is,
my computer is more silent than it has been in a long time now. If
that's because the trojan or Sunbelt is gone I will never know.

>I hope things get back to normal for you soon.

Thank you. I think I got them all.

Lotta

And then there's someone like me who uses the "modern", "comfortable" OS
   but also makes sure that I've got a good AV and firewall setup and
going on all machines. I have also NEVER had any viruses or malware,
knock on wood. I've always been very careful to keep a good AV program
and at least a software firewall setup and up to date, I'm sure that
helps. I've been playing with the "brain boxes" (my grandmothers term
from years gone by)  since way before there was anything near a GUI,
when a mouse was still something that squeaked and ran across the floor
to keep from getting got by the cat.

I currently have 7 different systems here at my house and am running XP
on two boxes, Vista on one laptop, Win7 on 3 machines and MS Server 2008
on one. On my everyday desktop I'm currently running the paid version of
AVG, ver. 9. I also have a hardware firewall setup so that makes it much
more difficult for anyone to force their way in or out.
I'm not trying to start an argument but don't understand the feeling
that some folks have that they feel safer running a very old OS and
feeling like they're more protected that way. There were and still are
many vulnerabilities and security holes that have long since been fixed
in later versions of Windows OSs. I'm just perplexed that folks will try
and run the newest AV programs, etc. but refuse to do the same when it
cames to the OS. As I said, I'm not trying to start a big argument here,
just curious as to the reasoning.

Maybe I read this wrong but do you really believe that the "modern",
"comfortable" OSs install and then instantly upon connection to the net,
the OS goes and installs countless viruses as part of it's normal routine?

Mick

Axel Berger wrote:
> I have never ever had any malware of any kind (not counting the Netgear
> card installation that so ruined my system, I had to install from
> scratch). But then I refuse to run a "modern", "comfortable" OS that
> just needs to be installed from its original CD and connected to the net
> and that searches for, runs, and installs countless viruses all by
> itself. On my Win98 I have to do all those virus installs manually
> myself. Suits me fine.

loro wrote:

>
> Mike Breiding wrote:
>  >I now use ZA, Avast, and SUPEREAntiSpyware.
>  >
>  >ZA routinely blocks unauthorized access and Avast has found more than
>  >one Trojan attached to bogus emails and web sites.
>
> Do you have the Paid version of Avast?

Nope. Registered HOME version.
-mb

Mick Housel wrote:
> Maybe I read this wrong but do you really believe that the "modern",
> "comfortable" OSs install and then instantly upon connection to the
> net, the OS goes and installs countless viruses as part of it's
> normal routine?

Yes, it's a well documented fact. Of course the "actively install" is a
bit of freedom with speech. What really happens, as far as I understood,
is that there are some server functionalities built in, that the normal
single user neither uses nor needs but that mayn viruses know to put to
very good use. And of course this is true for naked CD installs without
the later service packs. If you have one of those, need to reinstall and
need the net to get those updates, you're in trouble.

> but also makes sure that I've got a good AV and firewall
> setup and going on all machines.

Me specialty in engineering was nuclear reactors. There is a huge
difference between active and passive security. A sodium cooled fast
breeder needs active security controls and can run away if they fail. Of
course all these are redundant and divers (i.e. different brands and
technologies, so that not all will fail for the same reason) and it is
made very safe. But our own pebble bed design from Aachen made it
possible to withdraw all control rods (full power), shut off all cooling
and do nothing. All it needs to stay safe is the continued validity of
the laws of physics.
Of course a good AV software is worth a lot and you may hope, you'll
always be supplied with the relevant signatures before that malware
arrives on your machine. I prefer there simply not to be a hook or entry
for it to attack. Anything that doesn't exist can't be abused.

Axel

Axel wrote:
>Mike wrote:
> > I now use ZA, Avast, and SUPEREAntiSpyware.
>
>I have never ever had any malware of any kind (not counting the Netgear
>card installation that so ruined my system, I had to install from
>scratch). But then I refuse to run a "modern", "comfortable" OS that
>just needs to be installed from its original CD and connected to the net
>and that searches for, runs, and installs countless viruses all by
>itself. On my Win98 I have to do all those virus installs manually
>myself. Suits me fine.

I've lived through 2K and now XP for a couple of years without
getting anything either. Well, I did have something once that was
somewhat of a problem to get rid of, but I don't remember the
details. AFAIR it wasn't certain it was a virus in the first place
and it didn't *do* anything.

In what way do you mean modern Windows itself installs the viruses?
Sound like something I need to learn about.

BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter? I would like
to run without a software firewall, but after this I don't know if I dare to.

Lotta

loro wrote:
> BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter?

I believe I do, but hope I'll be corrected if I spout nonsense. With a
router the router has a public IP-address assigned by your provider and
all connected computers have local addresses assigned by the router (or
by yourself, if you turn the automatism off). So for any packet arriving
from outside the router needs to know, which computer to forward it to.
It does this by monitoring the requests you yourself make to outside
servers and routes the answers back. Thus any unsolicited packets can't
be assigned and are rejected.

(If you want to run a webserver or FTP-server or anything like that, you
need to program some specific forwarding into the router yourself.)

This takes care of the new capabilties introduced with XP. I believe,
but am not sure, 98 is safe from those even without a router. And of
course all I described is true only for a totally unsecured computer
running XP without any service packs - but that's exactly what you get
by installing from CD and connecting to get the updates from the net.
Typically the malware is faster than the installs, but a router does a
lot to protect.

Of course none of all that protects you from actively clicking a
contaminated site with scripting allowed, but you knew that already.

Axel

--- In ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com, loro <tabbie@...> wrote:
>
> BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter? I would
> like to run without a software firewall, but after this I don't
> know if I dare to.

I believe a router firewall is only blocking uninvited inbound traffic. A
software firewall probably doesn't see any unauthorized inbound traffic if you
have a router firewall in place. However a good software firewall can still
block, allow or prompt for permission on outbound traffic. You should be able to
configure it as to how to handle each app's attempts to make outbound
connections.

Regards,
Sheri

Sheri wrote:
> However a good software
> firewall can still block, allow or prompt for permission on outbound
> traffic. You should be able to configure it as to how to handle each
> app's attempts to make outbound connections.  Regards,  Sheri

With Zone Alarm any requests are for outside access are handled with a
pop up and you allow or disallow that instance only, or all which are
requested by that particular app in the future.

-mb

Sheri wrote:
> > BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter? I would
> > like to run without a software firewall, but after this I don't
> > know if I dare to.
>
>I believe a router firewall is only blocking uninvited inbound traffic.

Yes, it's theats from the outside I'm asking about.

>  A software firewall probably doesn't see any unauthorized inbound
> traffic if you have a router firewall in place.

Mine did. Maybe that's a sign the router isn't configured properly, I
don't know.

Lotta

Axel Berger wrote:
>
>
> Mick Housel wrote:
>  > Maybe I read this wrong but do you really believe that the "modern",
>  > "comfortable" OSs install and then instantly upon connection to the
>  > net, the OS goes and installs countless viruses as part of it's
>  > normal routine?
>
> Yes, it's a well documented fact. Of course the "actively install" is a
> bit of freedom with speech. What really happens, as far as I understood,
> is that there are some server functionalities built in, that the normal
> single user neither uses nor needs but that mayn viruses know to put to
> very good use. And of course this is true for naked CD installs without
> the later service packs. If you have one of those, need to reinstall and
> need the net to get those updates, you're in trouble.

Huh?  It's a well known fact that when you download various updates,
etc. for Windows OS' from Microsoft, they install known viruses?

>  > but also makes sure that I've got a good AV and firewall
>  > setup and going on all machines.
>
> Me specialty in engineering was nuclear reactors. There is a huge
> difference between active and passive security. A sodium cooled fast
> breeder needs active security controls and can run away if they fail. Of
> course all these are redundant and divers (i.e. different brands and
> technologies, so that not all will fail for the same reason) and it is
> made very safe. But our own pebble bed design from Aachen made it
> possible to withdraw all control rods (full power), shut off all cooling
> and do nothing. All it needs to stay safe is the continued validity of
> the laws of physics.
> Of course a good AV software is worth a lot and you may hope, you'll
> always be supplied with the relevant signatures before that malware
> arrives on your machine. I prefer there simply not to be a hook or entry
> for it to attack. Anything that doesn't exist can't be abused.

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear reactors or anything of that
nature. However, I do know computer and network security. And when it
comes to either, there's no such thing as a system that's 100% secure.
Some of you may have heard about the BSoD (Blue Screen of Death) that
was "caused" by a Microsoft patch for a vulnerability that went all the
way back to the Win98 time period. It was soon discovered that it wasn't
a flaw in the patch but rather that the machines that were affected had
malware that was causing the issue. Within hours, the hackers of that
malware had issued an update that fixed the issue. After all, they don't
want their access/information feed to stop and that's what happens when
the infected machines stop running. My point is that even if you think
you're fully 100% protected, you aren't and things can happen.

There's a 16 year old kid in Alabama that kept pinging at and trying to
break through my firewall. He was warned numerous times to stop and not
go further. Finally, I made the call with the info that the authorities
needed to locate him. He swears he was just curious and he was lucky as
he didn't end up in jail/prison for an extended period of time.
Nowadays, trying to break into anyone's network/computer can be
considered to be a terrorist activity. Not something anyone really wants
to be charged with. This type of thing happens quite regularly, most of
them will not keep working on a tightly protected network once they
realize they're not going to get in.

Personally, I *know* that it's better to run one of the later OS's and
to have updated as much as possible. The same is true with most
browsers, they fix and update security breaches in them as they find
them so having the newer versions is generally a good thing unless it
causes plugins, etc. to not work.

Of course, this is only my opinion based on my experiences and
knowledge. YMMV.

Mick

Axel wrote:
>Of course none of all that protects you from actively clicking a
>contaminated site with scripting allowed, but you knew that already.

No, that's one of the things I wasn't sure about, but I did know the
rest. I guess that could be the explanation to how I got the crap,
couldn't it? Most software firewalls I've had warn about things like
that, even if they most often do it when the evil stuff already is on
your HD,but at least you can get rid of it fast enough. Maybe that's
a reason to keep a software FW.

I find them quite bothersome. Every new one you try do things
differently and it's time consuming to learn how they work in detail.
You think you've found a good one that don't slow things down too
much,  then you upgrade and it has turned into a monster that does
everything but play cartoons. And the search for a program that is to
more use than harm starts again... AV is the same.

Lotta

Most routers don't have a hardware firewall built in. They may be able
to block some ports through the router software but lower priced routers
don't have a built in firewall.

One of the best free software firewalls available was from the Comodo
folks. I'm not sure if they still have it or not but it was better than
most free ones. I know Zone Alarm is another popular choice but I've
seen issues on some systems that try to run ZA, just like many have
issues with Norton/Symantec. It all depends on the system details as
well as what's installed on the system.

Locking down outgoing ports through a firewall can help in the fact that
it might stop some type of infection from communicating with it's
"parent" outside.

Mick

loro wrote:
> Sheri wrote:
>  > > BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter? I would
>  > > like to run without a software firewall, but after this I don't
>  > > know if I dare to.
>  >
>  >I believe a router firewall is only blocking uninvited inbound traffic.
>
> Yes, it's theats from the outside I'm asking about.
>
>  > A software firewall probably doesn't see any unauthorized inbound
>  > traffic if you have a router firewall in place.
>
> Mine did. Maybe that's a sign the router isn't configured properly, I
> don't know.
>
> Lotta

Running an FTP or webserver is something that should only be done
through a hardware firewall and with numerous defensive shields to your
machine in place. Allowing that kind of access is just begging for
problems and folks attacking you.

Again, just my opinion and YMMV.

Mick

Axel Berger wrote:
> (If you want to run a webserver or FTP-server or anything like that, you
> need to program some specific forwarding into the router yourself.)

Since ZA sold out they have become more trouble than their worth because of
constant ads to upgrade to the paid version. I have the latest in Comodo and
am well pleased with it. I use the Comodo Suite, it is free for personal
use, business need to purchase if I am not mistaken
Ed B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mick Housel" <motomania@...>
To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NTO] deleted dmusic.sys by mistake - oops!


> Most routers don't have a hardware firewall built in. They may be able
> to block some ports through the router software but lower priced routers
> don't have a built in firewall.
>
> One of the best free software firewalls available was from the Comodo
> folks. I'm not sure if they still have it or not but it was better than
> most free ones. I know Zone Alarm is another popular choice but I've
> seen issues on some systems that try to run ZA, just like many have
> issues with Norton/Symantec. It all depends on the system details as
> well as what's installed on the system.
>
> Locking down outgoing ports through a firewall can help in the fact that
> it might stop some type of infection from communicating with it's
> "parent" outside.
>
> Mick
>
> loro wrote:
>> Sheri wrote:
>>  > > BTW do know anything about this router firewall matter? I would
>>  > > like to run without a software firewall, but after this I don't
>>  > > know if I dare to.
>>  >
>>  >I believe a router firewall is only blocking uninvited inbound traffic.
>>
>> Yes, it's theats from the outside I'm asking about.
>>
>>  > A software firewall probably doesn't see any unauthorized inbound
>>  > traffic if you have a router firewall in place.
>>
>> Mine did. Maybe that's a sign the router isn't configured properly, I
>> don't know.
>>
>> Lotta
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Anyone else have trouble with the latest Firefox update?

Mine is claiming a Javascript error and hangs permanently, requiring a
RESET through files manager. (XP Pro)

Mick Housel wrote:
> It's a well known fact that when you download various updates,
> etc. for Windows OS' from Microsoft, they install known viruses?

Of course not. But if you want to do that you may need to connect an
unprotected computer to the net. Viruses will find and infect you in
minutes.

> There's a 16 year old kid in Alabama that kept pinging at and
> trying to break through my firewall.

Yes, when dealing with sentient beings actively targeting me then my
old, less sophisticated and long known OS will be very easy to break.
The thread so far was about automated and of necessity small malware
programs. Here using minority software and setting up differently from
the defaults will alone offer a lot of protection from anything coursing
in the wild.

And I still maintain that most of current malware, that does not require
user interation, makes use of OS features that my old OS simply does not
have. What's not there needs not be made secure. As an extreme example
(extreme for you and me, standard for all companies that have something
to protect): Keep any machine containing sensitive information out of
all networks and run it standing alone.

> Personally, I *know* that it's better to run one of the later
> OS's and to have updated as much as possible.

Some time ago one of the main advisors of our university computing
centre confirmed, that Win98 does not have the capability of being
attacked without user action. His tone was a little condescending, as if
confirming that CP/M too was safe from current viuses, but still, so far
Win98 does all I need. I'll need to move to Linux some day soon, I'm not
prepared to phone Mr. Gates every time I change my hardware, but so far
I keep putting it off.

Axel

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:

[snip]

> His tone was a little condescending, as if confirming that CP/M too
> was safe from current viuses,

Those were the days, Axel, all the OS you needed from a 5¼ inch 360k floppy.

fw

> > [snip]
> > His tone was a little condescending, as if confirming that CP/M too
> > was safe from current viuses,

> Those were the days, Axel, all the OS you needed from a 5¼ inch 360k floppy.
>
Uh, that's still true.  All we really n e e d  was around in 1990. It's the fun
stuff that gets us down.

Stephen Riddle wrote:
> All we really n e e d  was around in 1990. It's the fun
> stuff that gets us down.

Although that goes against all my prejudices and instincts I disagree
here. Of course in the strongest sense we don't need a computer at all.
I still write my letters using a simple text editor and the built-in
unproportional printer fonts. A several dozens of megabytes office suite
only adds bells and whistles and often makes the end product worse. But
my father recorded radio programs onto reel-to-reel tape and so did I
until about 1995. I then changed to DAT digital tape and was very
disappointed, the mechanics just did not last under heavy use. I now use
computers and good sound cards throughout. I began burning MP3-CDs but
now all data and backups are on several harddisks, that continue to
become bigger and cheaper.
In a way that is a need served. It used to be out of the reach of home
computing and now is well within. Something similar is watching films on
DVD, I have no other equipment to do that, no TV, and no VHS.

So yes, there are new capabilities and they do call for buying new and
higher powered equipment, but there are not too many of these. There
rarely is any improvement on what older machines did well already.

Axel

Is there any way to find out the version of a Microsoft office document,
doc, xls, ppt, etc.? I've got no MS-Office and OOffice version 2.4.

For e.g. PDF the version is in the first few bytes, but I couldn't find
anything in the office documents. When telling people they're
inconsiderate idiots and minions of W. Gates trying to force others to
upgrade perfectly good software for no sensible reason, I'd like to be
sure of my facts and to be able to prove it.

Thanks
	 Axel

--
             Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger      Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
             Johann-Häck-Str. 14            Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
             D-51519 Odenthal-Heide       eMail: Axel-Berger@...
             Deutschland (Germany)         http://berger-odenthal.de

Axel Berger wrote:
>
>
> Is there any way to find out the version of a Microsoft office document,
> doc, xls, ppt, etc.? I've got no MS-Office and OOffice version 2.4.
>
> For e.g. PDF the version is in the first few bytes, but I couldn't find
> anything in the office documents. When telling people they're
> inconsiderate idiots and minions of W. Gates trying to force others to
> upgrade perfectly good software for no sensible reason, I'd like to be
> sure of my facts and to be able to prove it.

HEY! Are you calling me an "inconsiderate idiot and minion of W. Gates"
?? ;)

-Mike
====================
>
> Thanks
> Axel
>
> --
> Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
> Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
> D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@ Nexgo.De
> <mailto:Axel-Berger%40Nexgo.De>
> Deutschland (Germany) http://berger- odenthal. de
> <http://berger-odenthal.de>
>
>
>
>
> avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com>: Inbound message clean.
>
> Virus Database (VPS): 100221-1, 02/21/2010
> Tested on: 2/21/2010 4:50:54 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
>
>

--


Morgantown WV

www.EpicRoadTrips.us

Mike Breiding - Morgantown WV wrote:
> Are you calling me an "inconsiderate idiot and minion of W. Gates"

Certainly not. Although if you were to get a new office version the day
it comes out (usually as a paid polititian and at taxpayers' expense),
not to use "save as" and a compatible file format and then post that
file to all those subalterns paying for their upgrades themselves, who
want be able to read any of it, then on a bad day I just might (and
worse).

Insisting on legible formats does _not_ mean telling people what
software in what version to use, if only those clueless one could get
that simple fact.

Axel

> > Is there any way to find out the version of a Microsoft office document,
> > doc, xls, ppt, etc.? I've got no MS-Office and OOffice version 2.4.

I may have missed the answer, but my fellow church members insist on emailing
word documents.

I opened one in NoteTab and found this way down toward the end:···Microsoft
Office Word Document·
···MSWordDoc····Word.Document.8·ô9²

Looks like someone could write a clip to extract this information, or there
should be a Perl script already out there.

Are there people with a experience on a choice between the two? If
the menu must be changed frequently, what is the best option?
--
Adrien

[sorry to post twice]

Are there people with a experience on a choice between the two? If
the menu must be changed frequently, what is the best option?
--
Adrien