tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10485390.post112411413099576344..comments2024-03-01T03:17:37.454-05:00Comments on Dalai's PACS Blog: Question: What are the Advantages of Web-Based PACS??Dalaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17775491711029994911noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10485390.post-1124230065776704572005-08-16T18:07:00.000-04:002005-08-16T18:07:00.000-04:00Now, I’m not a PACS person, I’m in IT, so take my ...Now, I’m not a PACS person, I’m in IT, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I would much rather see a well designed, small fat client install which uses the internet to communicate to a backend database than to see a “thin” web app.<BR/><BR/>Time and again I have seen vendors producing web applications that will only work on IE, and only on 5.5 (or earlier). I don’t use IE, and if I did, I certainly wouldn’t be using an old version. So right out of the gate, this kills one of the main selling points of portability. Add to this the nightmare scenario (for me) of customers calling with “Ever since I installed Smiley Central, I can’t read my lab results”, and you’ve got an all around loser in my book.<BR/><BR/>An easily available web site with a small, intuitive install would be so much more preferable to a web app. Limiting the customizations possible by the end-user saves a lot of support time in the long run.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383368916549734925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10485390.post-1124145212543301952005-08-15T18:33:00.000-04:002005-08-15T18:33:00.000-04:00I appreciate the response. I see the web as a huge...I appreciate the response. I see the web as a huge advantage from a users standpoint only for the sake of launching the application. You can do much more in terms of integration when it is a web app. however, I still disagree on the bullet proof, rapid fire comments that are made. How often do youo click on a link on the web and get a 'Page cannot be displayed' then click back and try it again having it work the second time around? The web does get a little flaky at times. However, while they are communicating on the same port, I think 'web' based PACS systems are much more robust than that (I hope at least). Once you are in the application (after it is launched), the web is really out of the equation. You are running an application that is installed on your local machine. Most (all I would hope) applications have some capability to auto download new clients as they are available. So, to make a long story short, web or not, if an application can be downloaded and installed/configured from a web browser and if that same application will communicate on standard web ports, then to me everything else is the same. One can be at a coffee shop or at a book store and expect to be able to 1.) Download the client and 2.) Have the ports opened to communicate on. I would love to have some validation that my thoughts are in tune with how things are really engineered out there. I may be way off, who knows. With that said, you are correct in that some companies do it better than others! Amicas, I hear, rocks as well as a few of the other companies. There are others that are not so good. They have nice applications but make deploying them tough (GE, DR, etc.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com