"Why don't you just use a monitor in 16:9 ratio - but larger?"

"... This one goes up to 10."

If you "need" a larger monitor so that you don't have to scroll, you're doing it wrong. I still use a 640x480 and a 480x800 ... which are rather crap experiences admittedly, but, jeez.

I think you're just afraid that if a reasonably satisfactory type of display is universally accepted then a display techn%logy journalist is going to be looking for a new job.

And anyway, look at what you didn't mention! 3-D! Holograms! Plastic bendy displays! I have a bent LCD laptop! But it wasn't meant to be, it got run over, obviously it doesn't work any more. With a flexible display model I would just have an amusing anecdote. Perhaps a fashion statement. Instead of a sad slab of technological trash.

And let's not forget low power display technologies. Maybe we can hope for the personal computer that is powered by giving it a strong shake up and down every ten minutes.

16:10 would suit me as having somewhere to put touch controls and metadata for a 16:9 show. But I wouldn't and won't watch 4:3 shows and curse at them for not filling the screen. Well, not much. I assume they're showing me as much as they want to. With five presenters THE TV BOOK CLUB needs widescreen to fit everyone in. THE DAILY SHOW mostly doesn't.

1920/1200 = 1.6. The Golden Ratio is 1.618033... 1920 by 1186 is the closest you can get to the Golden Ratio with 1920 pixels as the longer side.

I prefer 4:3 myself.

I'll take a 16:10 monitor over a 16:9 monitor. For something as close to your face as a monitor, to get the height you want for viewing applications means that the monitor is too wide. The small bands at the top and bottom when viewing 16:9 video do not bother me, and there is plenty of video out there in 4:3 format that fit a little bit better on a 16:10 screen.

I hope with the 30 bit deapth there is no fake LCD interpolated 18 bit TN panel anymore. I hate cheated, because they declare true 24 bit, while we know all TN panel is just 18 bit.

I second that!
Too bad the latest display port spec, in dual-link mode, I think, maxes out its bandwidth at 3840 * 2400 * 24 bit color * 60 Hz and no audio. If they only pushed it a little bit further to support 4096 * 2400 * 30 bit color.
I have a 17" laptop at 1920*1200, and use the standard font settings in windows XP and firefox. I think that's about as big a dpi as I could handle using those settings. That same dpi would make a 4096*2400 monitor 36.27".
The 30" 2560*1600 monitors cost around $1200 right now for the mass market versions. At the same $ / Pixel ratio, a 4096*2400 monitor would cost $2880. I would save up and buy that on a normal year, but this year I was hit by the recession.

If people didn't use rigid PAPER and other pointless document formats for computer communications we wouldn't even think this was a useful feature in the 21st (not 19th!!!) century!

@my previos comment...

Hopefully, laptops won't all move to 16:9 either, with 12" models having small enough screen I couldn't imagine sacrificing vertical space. I can deal with the black bars on the bottom and top when I rarely watch videos on my computer.

I agree, after using several 16:9 & 16:10 monitors. I prefer the 16:10, it works better for gaming as well too since you're usually loosing space for toolbars at the bottom and top of the screen. The 16:9 screens don't have the vertical room for regular applications either.

I'm glad my laptop is 16:10, hopefully

There NEEDS to be more 22" monitors running 1920 x 1200. Until there is a reasonably priced one, I will stick with 1680 x 1050.

I thought I was the only one who noticed the emergence of "Full 1080p" computer monitors, presumably described thus to distinguish them from 1080i! It's despicable to push us back to such a low vertical res. just so the manufacturers can save a few cents and piggyback on the HDTV hype. With any luck, some medium and high-end devices will remain at 16:10.

We resolution junkies are grateful to you for the excellent and timely article, kind sir!