> Obviously manufacturers haven't been eradicating useful screen ratios for no reason

For me 16:9/10 is way more "useful" than 3:2/4:3 ever was (had that for ages, wouldn't go back). I love being able to have two different things side-by-side, e.g. an editor and a terminal, on a 13" screen, at a font size I can still read well. I definitely wouldn't buy a square-ish laptop screen.

And I'll take anything that's more square than 16:9 personally.

16:9 is great if I wanna watch movies all day, unfortunately for the apparently unaware laptop industry, I need to also work a little bit sometimes.

Thankfully Apple never jumped on the stupid 16:9 bandwagon with their laptops. Now if only some monitor manufacturer would wake up and start making 27"+, 16:10, 4K+ monitors with 120hz+ refresh rate then I'll literally instantly buy 5.

> Apple never jumped on the stupid 16:9 bandwagon with their laptops

This is not entirely true :) The MacBook Air 11" was 16:9.

Fair enough, and that may not be the only machine for all I know, but what I meant was that in general Apple tends to go for 16:10 which I love.

A poor cope for being forced to use a media consumption format. In order to make full use of the ratio ill-suited to productive work, you are compelled to adopt a specific workflow involving two windows being open at all times. Great, that stackoverflow search page can stay open. Do yourself a favor: pivot one of your cursed resolution monitors and open a source file on it in full screen. That is how many text rows you lost in the war on general purpose computing.

I actually hate that I don’t have many options for glossy screens for the desktop, who can I blame for that?