The Tandy CM-5 monitor, introduced in 1987, was the less expensive CGA-compatible monitor from the Tandy 1000’s heyday. It was a very basic monitor and had a reputation for being reliable, but Tandy cut some corners on the picture tube.
Tandy CM-5: Clearly budget
Introduced in 1987, the CM-5 retailed for $299. For comparison, Tandy’s CM-10 display sold for $459 in 1987, and the CM-11 sold for $399 after its 1988 introduction. Tandy’s CM-5 was a digital RGBI monitor, compatible with IBM’s CGA standard and, of course, the enhanced Tandy graphics of the Tandy 1000. It would also work with the 80-column output of a Commodore 128. But of course, it saw its most widespread use with the Tandy 1000 series.
Believe it or not, the CM-5 was still selling for $299 in the 1991 catalog. But I don’t know how many people actually paid full price for one. When Radio Shack was running a sale, you could get the Tandy CM-5 bundled with a system at a discounted rate of $250, or sometimes even for free. IBM had been taking huge losses bundling its 4863 monitor for free with the PCjr. The CM-5 allowed Tandy to run similar promotions without taking ruinous losses.
Tandy changed OEMs at least once, with some models made in Korea and some made in Malaysia. It was probably not just a matter of keeping the cost of goods low. There was also the question of who could supply the picture tubes Tandy specified. The tube, you see, was what made the Tandy CM-5 monitor distinctive.
Why the Tandy CM-5 is maligned
Tandy’s tagline at the time was “Clearly Superior,” but there was nothing clear about the CM-5’s display. Reviews even at the time said the display was fuzzy. And that fuzziness was always the biggest knock on the Tandy CM-5, and sometimes on the Tandy 1000 itself, if the reviewer received the system with a CM-5 and couldn’t or didn’t think to try the Tandy 1000 with another CGA monitor.
The CM-5’s fuzziness was due to its .63mm dot pitch, where .43mm or .42mm were much more common on CGA monitors. While it displayed the same resolutions as any other CGA monitor, the display wasn’t as sharp. A Commodore 1084 monitor has a .42mm dot pitch, for example, as did Tandy’s own Tandy CM-11. The IBM 5153, the first CGA monitor, had a .39mm dot pitch. At .63mm, the CM-5 display was really more appropriate for 320×200 than for 640×200 resolution. The Commodore 1702 intended for the Commodore 64, for example, used a tube with a .64mm dot pitch. The C-64 output a 320×200 resolution.
Tandy had to change OEMs because .63mm dot pitch tubes were increasingly obsolete as the 1980s wore on.
What the Tandy CM-5 monitor was good for
A Tandy CM-5 monitor is fine for playing the Tandy 1000 games that used the 320×200 graphics mode with 16 colors. It’s not as good for text mode applications or for the higher resolution 640×200 graphics modes. Tandy always stated in the catalogs the CM-5 was a 320×200 monitor. But it would have been easy for a first-time buyer to miss that, or not know what it meant. And first-time buyers were clearly Tandy’s target for the CM-5 and the 1000EX and 1000HX models it frequently bundled with it.
Today, any CGA-compatible monitor is difficult to find and expensive. So if a Tandy CM-5 is what you can find, it’s hard to turn one down, especially if you want your monitor to match your computer and you have a Tandy 1000. But if you have a choice between a CM-5 or pretty much any other CGA monitor and the price is comparable and you don’t mind mixing brands, other CGA displays will be easier on your eyes. It wasn’t uncommon even in the late 1980s for Tandy owners to upgrade to a third-party CGA monitor after they tired of the CM-5.
If the main thing you want to do on your Tandy 1000 is play old Sierra point-and-click games, the CM-5 is fine for that. If you fancy some Infocom text adventures or anything else that uses 640×200 mode, you’ll be happier with another CGA type monitor.
Tandy pulled the same shenanigans with its later VGM-220 and 225 monitors, which had a .52mm dot pitch that would have been marginal for CGA, but was completely inadequate for VGA.
Stepping up to the CM-11 wasn’t a bad idea. The Tandy 1000 had a nice keyboard and nice build quality overall, and the cheap monitor ruined it for some people.
Fuzzy but reliable
In PC Magazine‘s 1990 service and reliability survey, they noted a high number of respondents saying they had a CM-5, indicating it sold well. Respondents said it was a no-frills monitor but stated it was reliable. PC Magazine rated it higher than average for CGA monitors at the time. If a lot of them survive today, the combination of the reliability and the large number Tandy sold is a big part of the reason why. Even if the display was fuzzy, at least the reliability was somewhat superior.
David Farquhar is a computer security professional, entrepreneur, and author. He started his career as a part-time computer technician in 1994, worked his way up to system administrator by 1997, and has specialized in vulnerability management since 2013. He invests in real estate on the side and his hobbies include O gauge trains, baseball cards, and retro computers and video games. A University of Missouri graduate, he holds CISSP and Security+ certifications. He lives in St. Louis with his family.