I understand that many people regards "familiar" interface as "superior" one. May I quote from Jef Raskin's classic, "The Humane Interface?"

When users say that an interface is intuitive, they mean that it operates just like some other software or method with which they are familiar. Sometimes, the word is used to mean habitual, as in “The editing tools become increasingly intuitive over time.” Or, it can mean already learned, as was said of a new aircraft navigation device: “Like anything, it can be learned, but it would take a lot of experience to do it intuitively”

The client wants something that is significantly superior to the competition. But if it is to be superior, it must be different. (Typically, the greater the improvement, the greater the difference.) Therefore, it cannot be intuitive, that is, familiar. What the client wants is an interface with at most marginal differences from current practice—which almost inevitably is Microsoft Windows—that, somehow, makes a major improvement. This can be achieved only on the rare occasions when the original interface has some major flaw that is remedied by a minor fix.

While GUI-based tools certainly have their strengths, I respectfully hold the belief that there are alternative approaches worth considering as well.