Originally Posted by darktrooper
My dad implements the system so I'm fairly certain it's not the bottleneck. Most images are held locally on the system but some that are on the server take even more time to load. A brand name would definately be preferable for warranty purposes.
I'll have to get the specs of the current computer to make sure the next one is an upgrade. Thanks for all the responses.
This also sounds as if either the server or the network needs an upgrade. Medical images tend to be huge, since (as far as I am aware) any kind of compression (even lossless) is expressly forbidden.
Depending on how old the system is, you might even be running 10Mb Ethernet in places - not likely, but certainly possible. 100Mb Ethernet - a more likely scenario - should be plenty fast enough.
If I was in your position, the first thing I'd do is look at the server and then the network; in my book the all images should be stored on the server anyway.
After that, look at the client machines and see if they lack the resources needed to process the images.
Obviously, I'm just generalising here, but if you can come back to us with the specs of your current server, network and client machines, we can most likely help you decide where to spend the money to get the best return on your investment.