> Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously.
I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]).
They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously.
I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]).
[1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...