HP like its rival Dell does not make LCD displays. It buys from prime manufacturers like NEC, LGE and Samsung. And if you go to the web sites of the prime LCD manufacturers you will find that there are numerous models that have the same screen specifications and similar external hardware, but are configured internally for different market applications. So even if some things are similar or seem to be the same what you don't see may not be. A company like HP can possibly be purchasing the screen and backlight and putting in different internal components configured for their specific markets.

In the past Sony made and sold Trinitron CRT tubes to a lot of different brand
makers many of which performed quite differently than a Sony branded CRT, and even Sony made variations for different markets and prices using one particular tube.

If the specifications that are used to describe LCD displays were really indicative of how they actually perform used for photographic process computing, you could possibly know whether you are getting a product that will work well for what you will do with it, but the specs are more misleading than enlightening.

If you just make a leap of faith without knowing specifically what direction it is taking you, your destination may be a sad surprise.

Thanks again Bogie for your insights. So can I assume you still recommend the Samsung 214T as the best "reasonably priced" 21" 4x3 monitor at the moment?

At the prices being asked, and considering it is not an LCD specifically made for pro-graphics and photography, the color is exceptionally good and it offers a full complement of controls, so all in all about the best without spending quite a bit more money.