Because the bulk of LCD panels come in HD-TV scales, which is 16:9 (1920x1080 for 1080p, for example). Its cheaper for the manufacturing plants to only have to deal with one ratio.

I thought it came about because screens are measuered in diagonal distance, and the diagonal distance for 16:9 screens contains less pixels than for 4:3, so they are cheaper to make.

4:3 vs widescreen seems to come down to its what most people are used to, and so its what the majority (sadly, not us nerds wanting as much vertical as possible) buy.

I was referring to the very few 16:10 monitors available now, almost all of them are 16:9.

Another thing you can do is buy a smaller 16:9 one and rotate it 90 degrees. If you set up two side-by-side in this configuration, you've got a display which is almost square.

It's not hard, it just costs money. Dell has an excellent line of high quality monitors (e.g. the 24" IPS U2410).

...which costs almost as much ($600 vs $800) as the 27" 16:9 U2711. 1920x1200 @ 16:10, or 2560x1440 @ 16:9. I know I'd prefer 2560x1600, but I don't know if the even make them. Apple's 27" and 30" displays are 16:9, too.

the 30" display is 2560x1600 (16:10), also, it's now supposed to be superseded by the 27" display (2560x1440) which makes me hope my 30" doesn't break down any time soon as I want my 200 extra pixels.

I haven't seen any news that the u3011 is being discontinued, where did you hear that?

I have a 16:10 monitor, I had no idea it is hard to get one.