This probably doesn't apply here, but I'll mention it anyway. If you're using more than one piece of software to examine PDM you'd better check that the default settings are the same. Different numbers of bins, covers, "fineness"/resolution step-sizes and test period ranges can make a difference to pdm results in practice it seems. Probably because the method is quite prone to aliasing. As I say, this may not matter here, because I think the vsnet sourced PDM programs for both windoze and dos were written by the same author, so are liable to have the same defaults [and bins and covers nearly always seems to be 5 and 2 anyway], but if the data is a bit noisy this could be a concern. As Dr Kato says, phase diagrams folded on a derived period value are a quick and easy test, with an option for doing that easily even being built into winpdm. And as Dr Kato also says, the significant figure issue is a frequent problem with Julian Dates, as most software tends to round up decimals rather than clipping of the front end of the number. As there appears to be a tendency for people to accept output from machines as is, no matter how many decimals the machines through out, you've to watch this. I've had people pass on to me PEP deltaV values to ten decimal places, because the pepV calculating software was probably simply set to long integer precision. Cheers John