I'd add a few facts that would help people with respect to gaming, and some math drawing out the general differences between 16:10 and 16:9.
Widescreen gaming is either in Hor+ or Vert- mode. I'm using FPS, since the difference is most important there.
In games that are in Hor+, e.g. CoD4, having a 16:9 resolution gives you a wider horizontal FOV over 16:10 without any loss of vertical FOV. It's the same as 16:10 with little bits added on at the sides. So, it is a higher viewing area but with a lower number of pixels versus the equivalent 16:10 resolution meaning less absolute image quality, but I doubt it is noticeable. This is the best and preferred method of widescreen for FPS games.
In games that are Vert-, e.g. BF2 (pre 1.5), having a 16:10 resolution gives you extra vertical FOV over 16:9. It's the same as 16:9 with a bit added on at the top, and sometimes bottom. This is essentially a 'cropping' method. As you move from 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9 all that changes is the vertical viewing area, meaning that the horizontal FOV doesn't actually increase, so you get a view that often feels zoomed or tunneled, which is why it is inferior to Hor+.
Since most new games use Hor+, a 16:9 screen is better since it provides a wider FOV without making it shorter or having any noticeable loss in quality. Manual changes to FOV are still possible for given games (Vert- will have HUD stretching or alignment most of the time, though), so the above is for stock in-game settings.
As for movies, in my opinion, you are not going to get a better view of movies on a 16:9 monitor. The number of horizontal pixels is the same and for a 22" (diagonal) monitor the horizontal viewing area is +-1cm more on a 16:9 monitor compared to a 16:10 monitor. This is roughly a 2% difference, which imo is negligible. What you will get is no tiny black bars on a 16:9 format video and slight smaller black bars on an anamorphic format video. That makes no difference to the quality of the image and is really just preference, again imo.
Personally, I prefer a 16:10 monitor, since I do a lot of text work on my PC and having the extra 10% vertical pixels help. Plus it is also a larger work area in total. For a given perimeter, a quadrilateral's area increases as it tends towards a square. E.g. for a perimeter of 20: 7x3=21, 6x4=24, 5x5=25. A 22" 16:10 monitor has about 6% larger physical surface area (maybe this math a bit wonky, not sure about relationship between diagonal and perimeter) compared to a 22" 16:9 monitor, and it also has 11%/22%* more pixels (1920x1200 vs 1920x1080/1680x1050 vs 1600x900). So a 22" 16:10 monitor has both a larger physical area and higher density of pixels, meaning better overall viewing quality (at least definitely at 16XX, even if the physical surface area math failed). (4:3 monitors actually present you with the greatest work area for a given diagonal screen size, but 16:x often ends up being preferable since, for one, it replicates and reflects our normal physical rectangular work area, such as a desk, and also because it fits better into our natural field of vision.)
Things seem to be moving in the direction of 16:9, since I've heard that those panels are cheaper to produce, though I haven't learnt quite why this is so.
I so hope my math isn't completely wrong.
*If the 16:9 was at 1680x945, then the 16:10 would only have 11% more pixels, but for some reason the standard 16XX 16:9 resolution is 1600x900, which makes it quite inferior to its 16:10 counterpart.
