Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:10 (8:5) aspect ratios became commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone monitors. Reasons for this transition were productive uses for such monitors, i.e. besides widescreen movie viewing and computer game play, are the word processor display of two standard letter pages side by side, as well as CAD displays of large-size drawings and CAD application menus at the same time.[4][5]
In 2005–2008, 16:10 overtook 4:3 as the most sold aspect ratio for LCD monitors. At the time, 16:10 also had 90% of the notebook market and was the most commonly used aspect ratio for laptops.[2] However, 16:10 had a short reign as the most common aspect ratio.
Around 2008–2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio and by 2011 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products. According to Net Applications, by October 2012 the market share of 16:10 displays had dropped to less than 23 percent.[6]
The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency[3][7] - since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.[8] A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[2]
The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive.[3][9] On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal.[9][10] For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens.[9][11][12]
