For larger desktop screens, I definitely prefer the aspect ratio most closely matching full screen video. And for my comically large (43”) monitor, I couldn’t use the extra vertical space if I tried. Reducing the width would just limit my usable horizontal space and shrink video for my dual purpose TV use.
> Same goes with glare and non-glare
On this I’d also distinguish portable/desktop use cases. And weirdly they’re the opposite of what I’d prefer. It’s almost impossible for me to find large screen glass-front monitors with the contrast and color space benefits that come with that. And portable usage definitely benefits more from glare protection.
It's actually pretty hilarious if you have a monitor arm that allows rotating the monitor, the amount of vertical space is ludicrous. You can fit a side by side diff with over 200 lines of code visible.
It's not very practical, though.
It's a bit silly though, since the keyboard is far too low for typing comments on a diff. And if one raises the desk so that the keyboard is at the right height, it's a good workout for the neck to put it mildly.
Last week I watched a review of the LG gram and the reviewer said he liked the new 16:10 screens more, because they are higher and this new [sic] trend was promising.
Meanwhile I'm using one of the last reasonably priced 16:10 screens I could get 10 years ago before the whole industry decided people only want 16:9.
Same goes with glare and non-glare
It's like display creators lost their minds in 2005.