Lars Appel wrote:

> PS: I do like Stage/iX very much. Am I the 1st RC engineer to admit
> this?

Stand up and be counted, and proud of it :-)

I was a bit overly critical in my previous reply in this thread, so let
me make amends by stating "properly", as Scott pointed out, that most of
my problem cases were indeed those involving installation jobs or MPE
internals intensive 3rd party software (NetBase); and in the latter case
AUTOPAT suffers from the same problems.

I still prefer Patch/iX and will at least attempt it through the patch
qualification stage in lieu of AUTOPAT.  Always.

To make a constructive criticism, Stage/iX has an aura of mystery or
secrecy surrounding it.  Stage/iX is *NOT* another patching mechanism
in terms of AUTOPAT vs Patch/iX, but rather if you initialize Stage/iX
you have the *option* of creating a typical CSLT/Store tape or staging
the updates.  The process is the same (Patch/iX), you only use Stage/iX
to initialize the stage and to set the boot path.  Many users seem to
have the impression that Stage/iX is a third patch installation tool,
which it is not.  It is an extension to Patch/iX.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>