While I found your question funny, I must say that a 4:3 (or 3:2) ratio allows for better use of screen estate for a lot of work cases. I write a some music arrangements, and being able to view a larger vertical part of a score without having it zoomed out is a big benefit.

I also prefer it for programming. I cap my lines at either GNU lines or 92, meaning horizontal space is never a problem. Getting more vertical space in all Windows when I split my screen in 4 or 1+2 is nice.

A 16:9 screen is too short when working on 16:9 video.

It is really nice to have video span, if not the entire viewport, most of it, with the timeline down below. 16:10 gives you a nice bit of control area.

But 3:2 is even better. Hell, give me a 5:4 screen—I live and die in Figma all day, working on mobile app mockups. Which are very tall, obviously, and get awfully small on these HDTV-ish aspect ratios.

You could just rotate your monitor 90 degrees and change the orientation from landscape to portrait in the desktop.

Somewhat hard to do with a laptop

It's a laptop.

So?

https://preview.redd.it/would-putting-my-laptop-like-this-ha...

:)

Except this still isn’t great with a 16:9 aspect ratio…well I guess 9:16 now…display.

It’s still too damn narrow. Yeah, I get plenty of vertical space, but then the Figma chrome gets jammed into teeny little strips along the sidebar.

This solution does better in Adobe applications, where you can break panels out of the parent window…but still, just, no, 16:9, too skinny, too gawky, give me closer to the Golden Ratio.

Writing (including code and word documents) tends to push the vertical bounds of screenspace rather than horizontal.

Media (widescreen cinema) is more horizontal.

Side-by-side is horizontal.

I'd like three terminals or code editor windows side by side. I don't care about the vertical space as much.

exactly. even just comparing a diff side by side sucks on most laptops.