The usual difficulties of small business in a dog eat dog corporate culture.
I wish them well and would seriously consider their product in the future when it has the same features or more than MD3. It is based on exactly the same SQL database after all. I think the comment is very fair and certainly one of the reasons I have not changed. It is a new company which is yet to prove itself in the long haul. Who knows if it will achieve enough momentum to be self sustaining in the long term. Too many others with great products have failed. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr Hugh Nelson Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:31 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Switching practice software cost/justification I don't think this is a fair comment at all. Frank Pyefinch is not an unintelligent person, and neither is his wife, and they are in a better position than most to understand the issues of developing and supporting a product, and have not gone into this for a lark. BPS has a good competent support team, and many hundreds of practices. It has the great advantage of having a practising GP as its programmer in chief. Why should its longevity be any different than any other product? Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: >-----Original Message----- >On Behalf Of Ian Cheong >interface >2 )* Best Practice has long term risks associated with longevity in the >market > > _______________________________________________ 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
