The dearth of 16:10 monitors available bothers me, but if you're going from 1920x1200 (or less) to 2560x1440, you're still gaining vertical space - you're just gaining more horizontal space. I replaced my 24" 1920x1200 with a Crossover 27Q 27" 2560x1400 and absolutely love it.

Note that you only gain physical vertical space if you also increase the monitor size. eg replacing a 24" with another 24" will lose 11% vertical space even if there are more pixels. Consequently you have to significantly increase the diagonal size in order to get the same (or more) vertical.

You pay another $300 for the 160 pixels (but I guess they are larger pixels!).

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=2560+1600+ips

But I agree, I much prefer 16:10 and am frustrated they are so much pricier and in shorter supply.

Right on. I think the proximity to φ says it all:

φ = 1.618 16:10 = 1.6 16:9 = 1.777

I'm always amazed by the number of intelligent people who believes in the Golden Ratio Myth. As if some mix between magic and mathematics could explain æsthetics.

You should google : Golden Ratio Myth.

Or if you're lazy : http://goldenratiomyth.weebly.com/index.html http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

(Maybe you were just being ironical and funny... but you know.. Poe's axiom and all. Hard to tell apart what's irony and what's misinformation without a smiley ;-) )

It was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek, I like to poke fun at the mystical math connections as well. I will remember the smiley next time :)

I do prefer the 16:10 monitors though. I recently tried to get a warranty replacement on a 16:10 8-bit IPS monitor from dell, but they kept sending me a monitor with a 16:9 6-bit AFRC panel. Seems that everything Dell offers in the 22" range is a 16:9 now :(