To get back to the original question: you would have heard about it if the common commercial image-processing packages didn't work reasonably smoothly on certain platforms. If a PC is poorly configured or simply underpowered, then poor performance might be unsurprising. You probably don't want to have much else on the system besides the application (delete all the games, screen-savers, etc.). I presume you're talking about "pretty picture" sorts of image-processing, which seems to be seriously memory- intensive. For the Lowell LONEOS asteroid survey project, we happen to use two Linux boxes to grind through the data each night. But this image-processing consists of nothing more than blob-finding (stars etc) on about 10Gb of CCD frames per night, doing astrometric solutions, churning out lists of RA/Dec/mag for everything, and sorting the list to look for moving things. The software is ho'made, and there's nothing else on the machines besides the operating system itself (and no keyboard or monitor either); they do run fast, and don't crash. But I would think that there is no specific advantage to having them run under Linux rather than MS-whatever or having Macs. We don't need graphics, but sheer number-crunching; the bottlenecks are copying files among the discs, not processor speed. \Brian --- This message is from the AZ-Observing mailing list. If you wish to be removed from this list, send E-mail to: AZ-Observing-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, with the subject: unsubscribe. The list's archive is at: //www.freelists.org/archives/az-observing This is a discussion list. Please send personal inquiries directly to the message author. In other words, do not use "reply" for personal messages. Thanks.