16:10 is better for desktop space, but 16:9 is good if you like smaller black bars when watching widescreen movie. To be honest, 16:9 for PC is a joke, after all most movies are wider than 16:9 anywez. Full HD is a movie format that requires HDCP compliant hardware, from source to graphic card to connector to display. If you're just talking about display, then any 1920x1080 (16:9) display should be full HD compliant. 1920x1200 displays are also compliant because their reso exceeds 1080 progressive scanning lines (1080p).

Response time is used to describe how fast a liquid crystal switches from full white to full black. Sometimes GTG is used, i.e., grey-to-grey. Both these measurements are not interchangeable, but suffice to say that the shorter the time it takes, the crisper the screen when it comes to moving images. Best in class LCDs produce something like 1 or 2 ms GTG, but in contrast a plasma does that in fractions, i.e., 0.01ms thereabouts.

More here:
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=383529&st=

Ya true, but in terms of physical screen real estate a 22" 16:10 is bigger than a 21.5" or 22" 16:9 in width and height. The pixel density is also higher in a 16:9 compared to a 16:10 of a similar screen size so text will tend to be really small on a 16:9 Have you seen a 19" 16:9 screen? Looks puny and a real pain for long term pc use. IMO if you really want 16:9 the minimum size is 24". And not forgetting trying to view photos in portrait orientation, the photo will be way smaller on a 16:9 than on a 16:10