Good points. Once again different people have different needs. I don't want to put drawings into progress notes, but I sure do need a full set of templates etc etc which simply were in the "promised" category at the time I checked it out. I look forward to reconsidering when I check again and there is all I need. Productivity is the name of the game as far as I am concerned.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Spurge Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 1:21 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] (no subject) Dr John Van Dyck wrote: > Milton, > > > > Others seem incapable of grasping that there are some contented and > happy MD3 users out there. On this group it is not politically > correct to be such a user. > > Frank gets no criticism of his MS SQL back end for example but MD3 is > an evil agent of Microsoft.. J > > > > John, I accept that there are happy and contented MD3 users. I have seen comments from a number of such users. The reason why Frank draws less criticicism for BP's use of MS SQL compared with MD3's are multiple * BP installation typically does not need full SQL Server; for most practices only MSDE is required. This translates to a significant cost saving. The reports I have heard suggest most practices converting to MD3 are being recommended to purchase a full version of SQL Server. * Per the BP forum:- "BP has been written using generic SQL statements that should be interpreted identically by other database engines. The only MS SQL Server specific code is in the functions for detecting the presence of the server and for backup and restore. This was deliberately done so that other database engines could possibly be used in future." Can the same be said for MD3? * BP is all SQL, MD is far from that. I notice also your comments elsewhere that MDs feature set is much more comprehensive than BPs. Has MD3 got the ability to put drawings, picture and photographs into the progress notes? BP copes easily with such a task. Doctors like me, who spent years using MD2 thought of it as some sort of "gold standard". If it ever deserved such a description, it was a long time ago. BP is different to MD2 in so many ways. When you judged it, I hope you looked at all the things it does, that MD2 couldn't, not to see if it could be like MD2. I wouldn't use it if it was like MD2. Gary _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
