I also think 4x3 is better than 16:9 but market forces have made the latter the best option. One can get a 16:9 screen that's wider, taller, cheaper and better overall quality than basically any 4x3 screen.
16:9 might be the best for watching films, but not for stacking windows, or preserving space for menus, or scrolling across text, or exploring graphical listings, or basically 90%+ of the activities you typically do on a computer rather than a TV.
My main set-up is a widescreen 24-inch screen in the centre and 2 19-inch old Eizo screens that I preserve since long ago (only 1280x1024 each but impressive colour and image quality). These often have virtual machines open in full screen or terminal sessions. I use one of these to dock my laptop as well, in a top-bottom arrangement. I'd much rather have a triple 4x3 if cost was comparable, but it's not and I wouldn't change my current set-up for a while unless one of the screens died.
16:9 might be the best for watching films, but not for stacking windows, or preserving space for menus, or scrolling across text, or exploring graphical listings, or basically 90%+ of the activities you typically do on a computer rather than a TV.
My main set-up is a widescreen 24-inch screen in the centre and 2 19-inch old Eizo screens that I preserve since long ago (only 1280x1024 each but impressive colour and image quality). These often have virtual machines open in full screen or terminal sessions. I use one of these to dock my laptop as well, in a top-bottom arrangement. I'd much rather have a triple 4x3 if cost was comparable, but it's not and I wouldn't change my current set-up for a while unless one of the screens died.