Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem
 
16:9 for watching movies and playing video games.

16:10 for computing and media creation.
 
I prefer 16:10 just because it makes sense when you are editing a 16:9 movie, to have room for your toolbars and application menus/UI.

It doesn't make sense for the computers to lower down to the crappier TV aspect ratio.
 
16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem

That's the good thing with the new 27" iMac. That resolution is pretty slick. You get way more pixels than from other 27" screens out there who have 16:10 (standard is pretty much 1920x1200 on those).
 
I must be one of the old school guys who likes the old 4:3 format. My biggest problem with the wide screen formate (both 16:9 and 16:10) is neither have enough vertical pixels. Most of the stuff I work on his a lot more vertical information over horizontal. That and I am a fan of 2 4:3 monitors. One for working and one to hold relative information I need to keep looking at.

As between 16:9 and 16:10. I see 16:9 winning out because TV are in that format now and cost wise it will be cheaper to produce 16:9 because everything for TV is already set up for that fact so equipment to produce the monitors will be cheaper for the 16:9 format.
 
With the new HD and better-than-HD displays on the iMac it makes perfect sense to have them 16:9 - great for watching all your HD Bluray movies... oh, hang on.
 
It DOESN'T make sense. You waste all the vertical space available over your monitor.

1:1 FTW
 
Beats me why you would want a wider screen, other than movies what benefits from 16:9 (okay, your wallet perhaps), even then, in a short while, most computer screens will be of higher def than HD, so who cares about little black lines. Web browsing, typing/reading documents, coding... all vertical!
 
Both have ups and downs

16:10 ups:

(1) More real estate.


16:10 downs

(1) Looks more boxy (aesthetics). I like how 16:9's look.
(2) The base is boxy as well, which prevents the keyboard from being larger/wider.


Verdict: I'll go with 16:10.
 
Ive had both and with Windows 8 coming, Id rather have 16:9. But 16:10 was nice while I had it too. It was a bit weird going 16:10 to 16:9 at first though.

On Macs with OS X I think 16:10 is a better choice though.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.