client/server is more efficient. I'm not going to list all ways because we've covered it many many times. That said, everyone should be using server hardware.
The quote above is from another thread, but I am responding here since I think Gene's idea to move it here makes sense.
While Sandeep is clearly stating a matter of opinion, I have to say that I think his opinion is wrong. The fact is that despite all of the motivations to adopt an EMR, only a relatively small percentage of ambulatory docs are using a fully functional one. If you talk to physicians still using paper, concern about the technological requirements of an EMR is one of their major fears. It pushes providers towards Saas products, towards free products like Practice Fusion, and away from EMR's altogether. The fact that AC works perfectly well on a simple peer-to-peer network, with off the shelf hardware, using an OS that is well-known and familiar to even basic computer users is a major plus and selling point. Of course there are advantages to servers, both in terms of hardware and software. Personally, I don't think they are worth the extra effort. Others disagree. But to say that all of us should be using a server will only scare off many users who might otherwise be very happy with AC on a simple network they can manage with minimal support. Maybe if all docs had ready access to a full-time IT specialist (or even one in the family), then I might feel differently. As Gene points out, IT support may not even be a possibility (let alone economically feasible). Many providers want (or need) to spend their spare time learning more about medicine, or perhaps about how to keep their practice profitable, and not about new technology.
We may not feel that way, but we are probably in the minority.
At some point AC may require a server-based system; so long as it does not, I think we should advertise that as an advantage.
