Having used 16:9 or similar my whole life, I don't get what people hate so much about it. It seems like about the right aspect ratio, when split in half (one window on the left, one on the right). Yes, a single full-screen window has wasted space on the sides usually, but what's the big deal? Perhaps I don't know what I'm missing.
I've used both, and the switch from 16:9 to 16:10 was a regression. Way too much vertical cramping (and other dumb stuff, like fat bezels). I've switched back to 16:10 to the greatest degree possible.
4:3 to 16:10 was an actual improvement, because it gave more space for sidebar stuff. I'm curious if 3:2 would be a better compromise than 16:10, but I haven't had the chance to use a monitor like that.
I'm not writing code, but I edit video and write text on a 16:9 and have never thought that the screen format had anything to do with anything else than video crops.
It’s less of an issue with larger screens, but with small screens 16:9 gets vertically cramped really easily with all of the taskbars, menubars, toolbars, status bars, titlebars, etc eating up that space like candy. Open up an IDE like IntelliJ or Visual Studio (not Code, full fat VS) on a 13” 16:9 screen and this problem becomes immediately evident.
Most devs would probably prefer an ever taller aspect ratio than 16:10 but laptops with those screens that fit other needs are hard to come by.
It’s one of the reasons why I think the notch was actually a net positive on MacBooks: Apple added a strip of vertical pixels to 16:10 which acts as a “nook” for the menubar and notch to live in, making it effectively taller than 16:10.
Agreed. Even with my 24" a 16:10 is better. At 27"+ doesn't matter as much. Sadly to get high refresh rates I got a 34" 3440x1440 one for gaming and media viewing.
I was almost fooled by their 'Full HD' description, but glad to see 1920x1200 in the specs that followed.