16:10 or 3:2 screens usually are not reduced in width (compared to 16:9), but extended in height. For example, the 16:10 counterpart of FHD is not 1728x1080, but 1920x1200. (Historically, it’s actually the other way around: When 16:9 displays were introduced, those were cut-down versions of existing 16:10 resolutions, with the same horizontal but less vertical resolution.)
If you’re used to the extra height, even ultra-wide aspect ratios such as 21:9 (or even wider) do not compensate for the lost height compared to the corresponding :10 or :10.666 height.
It doesn’t really matter, if the diagonal is roughly the same and you use 200% scaling. The corresponding 16:10 or 3:2 would still be preferable (or even 4:3, which was once the standard aspect ratio for laptops). For a given notebook width, you basically want as much height as possible.
For desktop monitors, it can be more of a personal preference regarding FOV and window layout. For me personally, I think a ~30" 16:11 [sic] would be close to ideal.
I math'd this out recently and decided that ~16:9 actually would be the ideal ratio for me.. On a ~42" 8k monitor, using 2x scaling.
I'm optimizing mainly for viewing three documents side by side here. Having your primary document (e.g. text editor or IDE) centered means you're not constantly turning your head one way or another. And it has the added benefit of working well for media (compared to 3 monitors in vertical orientation). At 8k and that screen size.. the aspect ratio doesn't matter as long as there's enough vertical pixels and inches.
I found the same thing when 4k was first coming out on an inexpensive hisense TV. It would be hard to go back to only 2 or 3 side-by-side editing panes.
If you're viewing this website on a computer, what dimensions are your browser window?
On mine, it's roughly the size and proportion of my last CRT monitor. I didn't do it out of nostalgia, but it's significantly less comfortable for my eyes to scan horizontal than vertical.
It's not that I want height as much as I don't want width.
Wide screen - great but add a little height so you can see more rows. Now you have a tall screen - great but add a little width so you can see more columns.
In the end, wide vs tall makes less of a difference than total size in inches and total number of pixels.
Take your preferred 4:3 and add horizontal pixels under 16:9, or your preferred 16:9 and add vertical pixeks under 4:3, on either case you can fit more on the screen.
See layer8’s comment above. Let’s say there’s a sweet spot somewhere between ultrawide and square. Why would 16:9 be ideal? The golden ratio is pretty close to 16:10, which is the basis of A4 (etc.) paper.
> Why would 16:9 be ideal? The golden ratio is pretty close to 16:10, which is the basis of A4 (etc.) paper.
No it isn't. A4 paper is roughly 7:5 (actually sqrt-2). The fact that people consistently get this wrong suggests that the golden ratio isn't actually all it's cracked up to be (IME the golden ratio makes for things that are too wide. My laptop has a 3:2 screen that I'm very happy with)
