[citation][nom]gsacks[/nom]There is a flaw in the "wider is shorter" argument. When wide screens first became popular, I also ranted about them being "short-screen" monitors and tvs. But in reality, our field of visions is naturally wider than it is tall. It is called peripheral vision. Also, just try keeping your head still and moving your eyes side-to-side a few times. Then try keeping you head still and moving them up and down. Side-to-side is more natural. So if you want to increase the screen real estate on a large monitor, wider really is better - not just as a matter of cost, but from a practical point of view as well.[/citation]
True, but peripheral vision isn't the beginning and end of the issue. It needs to be balanced back against what the display is being used for.
Webpages are designed to benefit from more vertical space, so are word documents.
Excel spreadsheets are a mix although my experience shows they tend to favor more horizontal space.
Gaming/movies I would say favor more horizontal as well
etc...
However even with that in mind, is from a computing perspective 16:9 better than 16:10?
So lets look at what you will get:
16:10 16:9
1920x1200 becomes 1920x1080
2560x1600 becomes 2560x1440
The net result here is that unless the change will push you up to the next highest resolution than you would go at 16:10, you don't gain any horizontal space for information. In other words no benefit to your applications (e.g. Excel), but you are also losing vertical space which is going to impact all applications. Except for movies which favor the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Aesthetically though, maybe you will find a 16:9 easier to look at?!?