I really wish I could agree

After deciding to upgrade my three-year-old, 17" ViewSonic PT775, I read everything I could about 19" monitors, and took a look at several monitors at CompUSA and Best Buy, although I usually order from internet sites.

I wanted another ViewSonic. The PT775 was flawless, with perfect color, convergence, and geometry, so I looked at two PF790s, and they were major disappointments. Different parts of the screen were different colors, and the picture geometry was poor, even after trying to adjust the picture for several minutes (on both samples). I thought this kind of picture "quality" was reserved for shadow-mask monitors, not aperture-grill designs. While they were monitors sitting on store shelves, neither one had been there more than two months (looking at the manufacture dates). The 19" Sony flat-screens (CPD-E400/G400) were the same, with the additional "feature" of character ghosting. Even NEC's FP950 had geometric flaws---and this is a top-of-the-line monitor?

None of the retailers in metro Buffalo carry the Hitachi CM771, so, after reading favorable reviews at ZDNet and Epinions, I decided to order one from Outpost.com.

After unpacking it and adjusting it for several hours, I'm disappointed. While the controls are very easy to use, and its desktop footprint is about the same as an average 17" monitor, it has more cons than pros. It is a flat-screen monitor, but it's really a flat surface mounted in front of a typical cutaway-sphere-faced CRT---the picture actually appears recessed into the monitor by about .5". It does have a smaller dot-pitch (.22mm) than most shadow-mask monitors, but that doesn't make up for horizontal moire and focus that can't be adjusted perfectly across the entire screen without some compromise, and the sides of the screen are dimmer than the center. Also, while horizontal hook and trapezoid controls are available, they're needed vertically as well---and none exist. The right side of the picture is taller, and hooks toward vertical center.

I have an Optiquest Q95 at work, and, for $299, it has better geometry, color consistency, and moire.

For reference, I'm using an ATI All-In-Wonder 128 Pro, 32MB, on a dual-boot Win2000/Win98SE, 800MHz Athlon T-Bird on an Asus A7V motherboard. I've tried 1024-by-768 at 75/85/90/100Hz, and 1280-by-1024 at 75 and 85Hz. 1600-by-1200 does not look good, so I didn't go any further.

I miss the ViewSonic PT775, and I'm not happy that I "upgraded". I'm frustrated that most manufacturers are obsessed with flat-screen 19" monitors, especially since none of them can make one with even *acceptable* geometry and color consistency. Why can't someone simply make a good 19" aperture-grill monitor? Three years is an EON in the computer hardware industry, and I was expecting better monitors during that time period. In my opinion, they're not better; they're geared more toward corporate profit than technical excellence, exactly the opposite of what progress should be all about.

I'm still thinking of returning this CM771---and, at the moment, I have no clue what I'll buy next. While it's an acceptable monitor, it's not worth $450, compared to other monitors. That's why I'm rating it in the middle, but I'd look elsewhere for anything better than average.