[sbarre]

In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.

I've had 3 16:10 panels in the last 10 years and this was the case each time: 1920x1200 (vs 1920x1080), 2560x1600 (vs 2560x1440) and now a 3840x2400 (vs 3840x2160).

16:10 monitors were out of fashion for most of the last 10 years, but are making a comeback lately.. They were hard to find for a while but worth the effort imo.

[dasKrokodil]

> In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.

Sure, that's true for the pixels (which might also be the more important part), but the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).

[sbarre]

Sure but you said that when viewing documents side-by-side a 16:9 would give you more space, when really it's the same amount of pixels, and a trivial amount of physical difference (less than an inch on a 27" panel).

I was just clarifying that this is technically true but not really a noticeable difference on that axis.

[kasabali]

> the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).

That's hypothetical, they don't have the same diagonal in the real world. (e.g. 15.6" laptop displays are 16:9 while 16:10 ones are 16", and they have the same width after all http://www.displaywars.com/15,6-inch-16x9-vs-16-inch-16x10)