It plays nice with non-16:9 raster games. If you ever tried to run Dosbox on a 16:9 monitor, you get pixel interpolation and the only to get rid of it is to either use a CRT or use aspect ratio correction. If you use aspect ratio correction on a 16:9 display, it will frame your game of which is worse than black bars. How I solve this issue on 16:10 is I run Dosbox games at 800x600 (because 600 is half of 1200) and just have black bars on the side, black bars don't bother me, but pixel interpolation and having my games in a frame does.
Another benefit is most 16:9 games aren't rasterized nor aspect ratio dependent and the worst you have to do is to go into the ini files and adjust your fov of which I would get a nice FOV.
Well, that's why I'm looking forward to 2.4:1 and I suppose I'm the few people that care about my first point and most people don't care and it will probably fail.
you mean 4:3?most games for DOS and most monitors which were CRTs had an aspect ratio of 4:3 and not 4:1.
As for where to get them? that aspect ratio for the desktop is incredibly rare. at least now-a-days. unless you grab CRT monitors which some people still do and they are still a thing(?) but remember you're going to have to use DVI-I if my memory serves me right.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Yes 4:3 was used all the time, bur I never said they used 4:1, I just said "2.4:1" displays (a more traditional way of saying it would be 24:10) play nicer with legacy 4:3 raster games without framing to get rid of pixel interpolation.
The 2.4:1 monitors are new, that's why they're rare, they're only slightly more rare than 21:9. I love CRTs, but they don't make them anymore and the ones that still exist aren't going to last forever.