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
