Reality check: Using win-2k IE security roll-up files on win-98

[98 Guy]

It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

The files in question are:

browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll

But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

 

[rob^_^]

Hi 98,

We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate/validate
the ravings of an unknown entity. (It's a bit like believing there is a
God).

He is correct that IE is made up of many modules. Retro-fitting those
modules to an unsupported/untested platform. (well.. untested says it all)
is an adventurous idea. At least nothing will be lost (on a win98) if you
choose to do your own testing. Your machine must be one foot from the grave
already.

(MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations. Contact your local MS
office for the location of the nearest MS Partner offering those services).

Regards.

It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

The files in question are:

browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll

But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

 

[98 Guy]

We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

Support was not the intent with my post. I was looking for comments
regarding the claim that IE (or perhaps IE6 specifically) was "designed"
for NT-based OS's and that it's operation on win-9x systems was
borderline, according to this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate
validate the ravings of an unknown entity.

It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

Your machine must be one foot from the grave already.

Not to go off on a tangent, but there are many people that still run
win-98, and some (like myself) do so on modern hardware (3 ghz P-4's,
Core2, etc, with 500 gb SATA hard drives, etc).

MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations.

I have access to MSDN CD's and could run 2K, XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc.
I could use them without regard to following their EULA (Microsoft is a
criminal organization so techinically you can't steal from a criminal).
Yet I choose to stay with win-98se and Office 2K Premium. There's
practically nothing I can't do with that platform (other than be
vulnerable to viruses and trojans that have ravaged the NT-based OS's
during the past decade due to the negligent way that Micro$haft designed
XP and forced it upon the public). It was quite funny, in a sad way, to
watch all those XP systems become infected and turn into spam zombies
while my win-98 systems stayed 100% clean.

(and btw, full-quoting is bad form)

 

[N. Miller]

(It's a bit like believing there is a God).

Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.

 

[N. Miller]

It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

Those who know are probably busy with other stuff. The rest of us don't
care, because things are way beyond caring about that. Sort of like
discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

 

[98 Guy]

The rest of us don't care, because things are way beyond caring
about that. Sort of like discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.

I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
support:

: NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
: Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*

What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
incomplete?

How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
statement?

 

[rob^_^]

Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
incredible!

No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

 

[N. Miller]

Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
incredible!

Credit? In God we trust; everybody else pays cash.

No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

How is an atheist any more credible than any other fool posting to a public
Usenet group?

 

[N. Miller]

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.

I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
support:

: NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
: Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*

What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
incomplete?

How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
statement?

From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

 

[Tom Willett]

:
: From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
: disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.
: --
: Norman
: ~Oh Lord, why have you come
: ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

 

[98 Guy]

Or just plain don't care.

No, it's probably that there's nobody with sufficient knowledge of IE
that can answer the question.

Anyone that could actually speak to the question would most likely not
hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns would
just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares about
answering, when you all have really almost no technical knowledge of IE
or how it interacts with the operating system.

At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give an
opinion:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

 

[N. Miller]

Tom Willett wrote:

No, it's probably that there's nobody with sufficient knowledge of IE
that can answer the question.

Anyone that could actually speak to the question would most likely not
hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns would
just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares about
answering, when you all have really almost no technical knowledge of IE
or how it interacts with the operating system.

At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give an
opinion ...

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years. It has been
left in the dust, as far as I am concerned; ancient history. So why should I
care?

And anybody who actually knows might just feel the same way. I don't know
the specifics of using Gatling's machine gun, and I don't care to know. Most
important knowledge, in my day, was the specifics of using the M60; but that
has been superseded, for the most part, today.

And I don't know the specifics of using Colt's Dragoon pistol. I know it is
a cap-and-ball pistol, loaded from the front end of the cylinders, unlike
the later Colt's SAA (breech loading, using self-contained metallic
cartridges).

There is a lot of archaic hardware out there, knowledge of which has become
specialized to some degree; and useless to some degree. If nobody knows, or
nobody who does is willing to share, what are you going to do? Pitch a fit?
Oh, wail, you're already doing that!

 

[98 Guy]

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
denigrating win-9x.

It has been left in the dust

And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
that much clear to the reader.

This statement remains unchallenged and unconfirmed:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

 

[Patrick Palczewski]

Well, have you yourself tested the "statement" you keep posting as
confirmed? If you did and you found it true, then it's true FOR YOU. For the
rest of us, we've moved on, so trying to bait us into a argument and then
calling us "klowns" when we're not really worried about what the past held
(because WE'VE MOVED ON) is petty at best.

Welcome to my killfile....

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
denigrating win-9x.

It has been left in the dust

And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
that much clear to the reader.

This statement remains unchallenged and unconfirmed:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

 

[N. Miller]

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

Okay. Allow me to take another tack. I once worked for the Hewlett Packard
Company. Even as a lowly board repair technician, I was required to sign a
"Non Disclosure Agreement". Basically, if I learned anything which was
Corporate Confidential, I was not allowed to reveal what I learned to the
public until after it had be released through official Corporate press
channels. My inclination was to treat anything I learned, which I had not
read in the official HP press releases as "confidential".

I wonder how much of what you wish to learn fall under the same sort of NDA?

Now, it is obvious, to me, that:

A.) Nobody who knows, cares.

B.) Nobody who cares, knows

C.) You are a Troll.

'Bye.

 

[Peter Foldes]

My answer to you is a big No

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

The files in question are:

browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll

But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...discussion/browse_frm/thread/c8a23b4d29b3a4a3
(and surpress your gag reflex)

PS: Please don't feed the trolls...especially /that/ troll.

My answer to you is a big No

It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

The files in question are:

browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll

But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

 

[Hot-text]

98 Guy
It look like they would like Win98 to give up Ghost and Die.
They need to put all the win98 Updates on a CD to Sell, I would Buy One,
would you Guy?
Make BILL same $$$$$$.$$

We Do NOT NEED THEIR answer or Help.
For they not knowledge of Making Money For BILL.
Long Live WebTV for (Window 98) GUY!!!

 

[Hot-text]

Here and Win98 up and running
http://www.minpin.ath.cx is Power by window 98

Maybe Windows 7 will be the one that anybody don't care about....

Long live win98; For win95 was a toy, But windows 98 was and is a man tool.

Just make us a CD of the UPDATES we Buy it.

For We do need new UPDATE just the one Microsoft have now for Win 98 will
be good

Are Do Make SUE come up. For that Girl Will not be a good Woman to
See!!!!!

 

[Richard]

It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

Hi "98 Guy",

What version of Internet Explorer are you using on your Win98 system?

Microsoft Security Bulletin MS09-054 - Critical
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (974455)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-054.mspx

Here are some versions supported in that update:

Internet Explorer 5.01 with SP 4 for Windows 2000
Internet Explorer 6 with SP1 for Windows 2000
Internet Explorer 6 on all supported 32-bit versions of Windows XP
Internet Explorer 6 with SP 1 on all supported versions of Windows XP
Internet Explorer 7 on all supported 32-bit versions of Windows XP
Internet Explorer 8 on all supported 32-bit versions of Windows XP

MS09-054 Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/974455

All of those updates appear to be designed for NT-based operating systems.
Of course you can find out by trying the update and see if it freaks out
your computer, (and you with it, if you can't uninstall it.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Download details - Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...CB-5E5D-48F5-B02B-20B602228DE6&displaylang=en

[begin quote:]
Internet Explorer 6 SP1, the latest version of Internet Explorer for users
NOT running Windows XP, provides a flexible and reliable browsing
experience with enhanced Web privacy features for all Windows users. This
version includes a full installation of the Web browser and the most
recent version of Outlook Express, the e-mail client that is included with
Internet Explorer.

System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME;
Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1
[:end quote]

According to the above, IE6-SP1 was designed for other OS's besides NT's.

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

If that person wants to argue that NT computers have greater security than
Win9x machines, well, yes, but more security is needed because of greater
capability of remote code execution that is not present in 9x machines.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

That last part is a possibility, in the case of attempting to use updates
designed for NT computers on a non NT computer. But Win98 does not have the
additional capabilities of NT's, and therefore would have no need of any
patches to vulnerabilities of capabilities that are not in Win98.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

As noted above in the cited Microsoft website, IE6-SP1 was indeed designed
for Win98/ME/2000 as well as NT's and early XP's. The IE installation
installs components according to the configuration of the particular OS.

As for whether the latest security update can be installed on Win98, well,
the proof is in the pudding. You could try it and see. The installation
program should check the configuration of the computer and halt the
installation if it determines the computer is incompatible with the update,
(but don't bet your house on it!

FWIW. --Richard