That might kinda sorta almost even be true, except that 1080p (1920x1080) is not wider than WUXGA (1920x1200).
It's just shorter.
But "wide screen" just sound so much nicer than "short screen."
Laptop screens are generally not wide enough to fit two windows side by side. Even the ones that are, such as your 1080p 15" laptop, are unusable for most of us due to tiny text and so on.
I stand by earlier post for, say, a web browser or email client.
I say that as a windows user and fan (I have a mac, but it's far from my favorite machine).
I also don't feel that mac is any better at managing two windows than Windows.
Microsoft has tried to improve the side-by-side window set-up with their hot spots, but I feel it is a fairly weak implementation, and even though they advertised the feature heavily in Windows 7, I doubt many people use it regularly.
I don't want to start an OS flamewar though, so I'm going to restate my guess as:
I'm guessing most of the wide screen "haters" are people who are used to the "one maximized app at the time" workflow.
I use Windows and OS X on most days of the week, and Windows has never been that well suited for wide screen use, whereas OS X's window management makes it much easier to put screens side by side. I'm often doing this, and it's one of the biggest reasons I'm more productive on OS X. The idea that an app would take up my entire screen, unless it was something like a video editing app, is crazy to me.
A widescreen laptop monitor allows me to copy and paste data from an email into a spreadsheet for instance. Doing that on a 3:2 monitor would be maddening. I agree that for single window use, 3:2 is better for many things, but we don't really like in a single window model anymore.
I use both Windows 7 and OSX everyday. Windows 7's window management is so much better that, it makes me realize how much time I lose managing windows on OSX. The only logical explanation I can come up is that you don't know about snapping windows on Windows 7. Dragging a window to the left or right side of the screen (or with keyboard: Win+Left/Right) will tile it to that part of the screen.
I'd rather have a built-in unix shell (OSX) and install an aero-snap-alike than deal with Windows+putty+cygwin+...
That is to say, all OS suck; and we should not compare dick sizes, as we would all lose.
Works fine in Windows, I use it all the time.
If only window management and multi screen support were as good as the one on windows - it would pretty much be a perfect classic desktop environment.
Once you hit that threshold, going taller is better. And if you're going to be below that threshold anyway, going taller is better, I think.
Of course, this changes from application to application -- when I used an IDE like Visual Studio, there was no hope of putting buffers side by side, and vertical space was all that mattered.
I don't tile web browser windows, either. I'm using a 12.5" 1280x800 screen right now, and it's maximized, with the Windows taskbar on the right side. Using half the screen would be kind of pointless (I'm not reading two documents at once) and I often would like to have a taller screen when web browsing.
Personally I even like partially overlapping windows, e.g. I can only have part of a terminal visible if I'm tailing a file, I just need to see if something comes and then I can bring it on the front.
But that's just me, even if you prefer tiling windows, you can have many more configurations than the split screen.
So yes, I believe wider screens are better. :]
[Needless to say, I also find the constant bloviating on places like HN from people that think 4:3 screens are better for dev work pretty silly...]
So why on earth would you build a screen that requires people to expend more energy to use ?
Watching and reading are inherently different processes.
While reading, you will actually be focused to a very limited area at once. You will constantly move your eyes as you keep reading the text, regardless of how wide the screen is. A longer line requires more eye movement to reach the end of the line and makes it easier to lose track of which line you were at.
While watching, you don't have to make out every little detail in every single frame, so it is a good idea to make the aspect ratio of movies more like the way we see real life.
In summary, a widescreen movie is able to better utilize our "wide eyes", whereas wide text not only fails to better utilize them, but it actually makes text harder to read.
But it sure beats having to move your head.
On a novel, it's portrait - you need paragraphs of context as you scan forwards and backwards to follow the information stream.
On a computer with text search facilities, it's more convenient to have vertical text results and paragraphs - as long as the width is acceptable.
Of course, TVs look better in a widescreen format, and computer screens have been forced to orbit TV display sizing for the past decade... and this is why we're stuck with useless 16:9 screens with not enough vertical pixels.
Edit: It's also really awesome for reading/editing documents, since you can fit the full page onscreen.
Have to disagree here.
For Java and iOS development widescreen is far better because it allows project tree on the left, code in the middle and outline/inspector on the right.
the industry then went for 16:10 the so called "WIDESCREEN" at that time, and now 16:9
Which is the reason the movie business invented wide-screen: To make their movies darn near unwatchable on standard television. HDTV went wide-screen to chase the movie business, which has in response pursued ever more extreme ultra-wide ratios (12:5 or 2.40 in not-insane notation) for their blockbusters, so even with a brand new wide-screen HDTV, you get letter-boxing and only partial vertical resolution when you watch the latest Batman movie or whatever.
Now there are some small movements in the direction of ultra-ultra wide-screen in the computer business, and it doesn't bode well. 
So it's Hollywood's fault that your computer screen has a stupid shape, just as its Hollywood's fault that it has a stupid interface (HDMI/HDCP), too.
I really dislike 16:9 on productivity machines. It's not wide enough for 2 windows side by side, and too short for a single window.
Even Lenovo has recently switched to 16:9 (probably from the incentives of Microsoft Windows 8), leaving Apple as the last one standing making 16:10 laptops.
16:10 is the maximum wideness I can accept, but 3:2 (i.e. 15:10) would probably be slightly better.
So again. Unless Google has added something magical in recent builds of WebKit that hasn't yet made it to the iPad then it will equally be terrible.
Also, on iOS there is a ~300ms delay between taps and the "click" event (see for example https://github.com/ftlabs/fastclick) which is not present on non-iOS browsers. Perhaps that could explain why it appears so slow for you?
That's a single bullet point in a long pro/con list and you'll never reach consensus on the definitively correct aspect ratio. Plenty of people watch movies on their computer screens, others like having an IDE with frames on the side, others want games to spread across their horizontal field of view and some just think it looks modern. Why on earth does that make the screen ratio 'boneheaded?'
Be excited for your preference, argue the use cases that it suits, that's all fine. Maybe toss the prescriptive attitude that your opinion is categorically correct for everyone else who has not yet discovered it.
I don't call for a single aspect ratio: I just call for more variety: there is a good use case for more squarish laptop screens, but they are gone from the market, the main reason for that mistake being copying TV designs.
I would really like to see some interesting really wide and short touch screens as the 21st century replacement for 'function' keys along the top of the keyboard. Sure there are keyboards with LCD screens on every key but a nice 1920 x 480 bar that was as wide as the top of my keyboard, three rows of 12 "160 x 160" 'super tiles' I could put status in, or touch to activate, or what not, but below the screen where its easy to press my finger. Won't happen for a while though I'm afraid.
Meh. You get used to either one extremely quickly.
On a small laptop screen like a Chromebook, I agree with the author that a wide aspect ratio can be annoying because a maximized window often feels to short.
On a large monitor (ie 27+ inches) though, I think wide aspect ratio is good because a common use case is multiple side by side windows, and it's also a good fit for full screen video.
I like to think of it as something that could make a pretty neat remote desktop workstation. I've actually thought about putting my main linux workstation on the LAN, somewhere else (it's a bit noisy) and logging into it from a thin client. The Chromebook Pixel does make a rather attractive option for that.
Of course, you'd have to slap a proper OS on it, but that may be an intentional hidden option. I'm also not up to date on how well modern day RFB/X11 performs in terms of i/o latency, so I have all this marked as "potential weekend project".
What truly separates Pixel from a $250 laptop is the retina, touchscreen display which is wasted if you are exclusively using it for VNC.
also 4 gb? not for me ;/
You do realise that ALL it does is surf the web ? I don't understand why anybody would buy it over an iPad or a refurbished MacBook Pro. I personally think it is one of the most pointless devices released in the last few years.
Again. Why wouldn't you buy a MacBook Pro that is usable out of the box ?
But even if I did, I'm not sure it would run a sane Linux distribution out of the box (from what I'm reading, it's a bit touch and go,) and I don't consider a computer usable unless it can run the setup I need, which depends heavily on Linux -- developing on Mac OS X and deploying to Linux never worked for me: I could never keep a "sane" environment with the former.