I'll reject the "movie studios have something to do with it" instead of the YIELD issue.
Not unless H&Bollywood truly own the FoxConns of the world. ("Reality Diving Shows - who can make the bigger splat?!! Watch for it! This week, on Reality Diving!!" Hmmm, maybe Ken's right!! ha ha)
The HPs (the taller widescreens) at the 52x32.6cm measurement come out with a 1.595 aspect ratio - close to the 16:10, in other words.
The Asus (the short wide one) has the 53.5x30cm measurement - that's the 1.776 aspect ratio. Close to the 16:9's 1.777, therefore.
We can see where this is going.
As for video-card handling, yes, I would think so but with all ATI 6450s in several machines with the different monitors, and no monitor-specific driver apparently available for Asus, we end up with Asus having the short, squat O's. Curious. I'd think a combination would have solved it, but Asus monitors apparently don't have specific drivers although the HPs offer them. Maybe that's because they've opted for bit more of vertical space, and Asus is following The Claimed Standard?
Was it Confucius that said, "So the screen adds 10 lbs, eh?"
Or Shelley Winters? I forget...
Anyway... I suppose if we see "16:9" then we can assume "short fat widescreen" instead of hoping for more vertical space. Darn... I love those big ol' square 4:3s... I still spend far more time reading Top to Bottom than oogling over the sand dune photog's in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA...