16:10 isn't what I'd call "highly non-standard". What kind of work do you use your laptop for that makes this such a big issue?

Also it’s perfect to edit 16:9 video with toolbars

> If I had the option to have purchased it with 1920x1080, I would have.

For what purpose? I can’t imagine a single advantage to lower resolution.

If it was 1920 wide of any height of at least 1080, I can now display 1080p media with no scaling (its really hard to get players to not scale while full-screening, and scaling from 1920 wide to 2560 wide can never work well, even with high quality Jinc or even cutting edge machine learning scalers); but also, just streaming desktops that are already on standard monitors.

You don't need a smaller monitor to display without scaling. You can simply view the video in a 1920x1080 window.

But I don't want it in a window, I want it centered in my screen with no scaling applied without having to do any shenanigans on the laptop's side.

power consumption, other then that i also dont see it. i have laptops with 16:9 16:10 and 3:2. I find the 16:9 worse.

Maybe use MacBook only for watching videos?

Far from being highly non-standard, 2560x1600 was the standard resolution of 30 inch monitors from 2004 to at least 2014.

1600p is also becoming more popular with some ultrawide monitors now.

But really the TLDR is that “non standard resolution” is a bit of a red herring. There are many sizes and shapes of monitor available and the concept of “standards” is an anachronism.

Even something as seemingly obvious like 1080p is a flawed standard because many TVs enlarge the input slightly to crop away junk on the edges, resulting in a physical 1080p screen showing an approximately 1060p image.