As I have watched this board especially this topic I am increasingly dismayed that people, even the most brilliant of us, are so willing to reject things we are not experts in.
I was FLAMED for very first issue I raised about AC: the architecture. I suggested a SQL Server DB Architecture would allow the program to run optimally.
When I suggested a web interface HockeyRef found it very "offensive." Missing the point entirely that an INTRANET application would still allow you to OWN the app and run it on YOUR servers.
So far here is what I have seen.
One Doc spent 8,000 on a server. Why? To make AC Run FASTER. This is an architecture issue, SQL Server would solve.
Another Doc is paying for 2 T1 lines, a minimum cost of $600/month - That's $7200/year. To be able to run AC from multiple locations. Again, the addition of infratructure to solve what is fundamentally an architecture issue.
Another Doc wonders if it will work on a Mac. An issue which can be addressed by a web wersion.
Everyone loves AC because everyone believes "THEY HAVE A STAKE" in it. They were there at its conception, and have influenced its development thus far. Any suggestions from an outsider as to how to improve the application is greeted with derision and flames!
Those people who rave about the low cost, completely miss the fact that others are spending huge sums to get it to run optimally. Over a 5 year period, CYL will spend 35K on T1 lines, to run a great little EHR that didn't cost much.
My point here is a very simple one: while everyone loves the useability of AC, it appears people have ignored performance issues. Taking offense to issues of architecture that impact performance only means throwing more money at hardware and infrastructure.
