Favorite would be 21:9
Right now I'd be more inclined to buy a 40-46" 16:9 3840x2160 display instead of a 34" 3440x1440 21:9 display however.
Those 3440x1440 panels just aren't enough to replace a multi-monitor setup yet in my opinion.
I'm hoping that there will eventually be 5120x2160 ultrawides in the region of 50-55", because that would be large enough to replace the need for multi-monitor setup without being too big. (it's a 40-46" 4K made wider)
Having tried just about everything, I keep coming back to 16:9. It has a very good aspect ratio that fills your vertical and horizontal vision on high resolution displays almost equally. Good for immersion.
I've only tried 4:3, 16:9 and currently using 16:10. So 16:10, (computer) but I'm curious to try a 21:9 monitor and see if I like it. If it were a TV, it would have to be large though as Zone74 pointed out.
16:10 for me. I am kind of hoping for a 4K equivalent 16:10 monitor to show up around 40"-44" ideally but for some reason I don't think I will get it only because monitors have pretty much standardized on 16:9 and if they do make a 16:10 it'll probably cost a lot more.
I think favorite ratio changes depending on screensize. Needs more options on the poll
Below 27" 1440p I'd chose 16:10 any day.
27" and above I'm happy with 16:9 (such as 1440p)
40" and above I'd probably go for 21:9.
I've never used anything above a 27" 1440p, but the other discussion thread had photos of people working splitscreen on 40"+ 21:9 monitors and it look perfect for coding/multitasking
However, I don't think I'd like to game on a 21:9. To me it just seems too wide vs height... Like if I walked around in real life squinting all the time.
I think my perfect setup would actually be 2 monitors. Then I could get the benefit of split-screen multitasking, and then switch to gaming on just a single monitor at my preferred size (which would probably be 27" 16:10 but I've never seen those, so I'd settle for 27" 16:9 1440p)
16:10 was nice back when resolutions were quite low. 1920x1200 it was nice to have those extra vertical pixels versus 1920x1080. 16:9 is crappy on low resolution but comes into it's own at high resolution.
In the era of 2560x1440/3840x2160/5120x2880 you aren't as wanting as much for vertical real-estate.
My favorite ar is 16:10. I don't like unnecessarily wide screens, it's just a waste, I'll never put two windows side by side on a single screen anyway.
And I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 because I do a lot of video editing, and 16:10 provides space for controls below the actual video. But It's also better to do cad work on a less wide screen as the layout of most cad programs is like that, that the actual work area will be close to square which is the best.
I'd rather have two screens side by side if I need more desktop space than a single hideously wide screen.
16:9, simply because I hate letterboxing and most games are now properly formatted for this aspect. 16:10 is great for content creation, and 4:3 for old school stuff, because that's all there was (with the exception of NeXT cubes and the Sharp X68000/68030 which used almost square aspect ratio monitors) back then.
A FW900 would be a good choice. Supports 2560x1600@72Hz, 2048x1280p@90Hz, 1920x1200p@96Hz, 1536x960p@120Hz. All resolutions have zero motion blur (ULMB-equiv), IPS-level color and viewing angles and far better than even VA-level contrast.
If the choice was with the same pixel count in each case i'd probablly chose 4:3 for screens up to 1920000 pixels and then widen out above that.
but that is never the choice. You get a choice of standard resoloutions and pricepoints with wildly varying prices per pixel. I have a pair of 1600x1200 screens which I love but I could never justify buying another pair new given that 1920x1200 costs LESS than 1600x1200. When buying new screens for secondary machines 1920x1080 is a no-brainer because it has a far lower cost per pixel than any other resoloution.