For sure it makes sense in an office environment for displays catered towards general productivity. However, displays like the ROG Swift are marketed as gaming monitors and they still fail to make them glossy which puzzles me.
I'm a gamer. I paid for a glossy display with my own money once. Never again. Being TN didn't bother me too much, but I disliked the glossy coating from the first second of use to the last. AG shouldn't look like wet paper over the monitor, but glossy is not worth the slight added vibrance.
Off the top of my head, the following games were more difficult to play, or just harder on my eyes, during the day time, due entirely to the glossy coat of my prior monitor:
Metro 2033 Redux (some low-contrast areas)
Metro: LL non-Redux (some dark areas, and some low-contrast)
Fallout 3 and NV (modded w/ darker nights)
Oblivion (darker nights and interiors)
Skyrim (darker nights and interiors)
Shadowrun Returns
The Witcher
The Witcher 2
The diffuse reflections from sunlight through closed blinds is plenty to make it annoying, IME. That's with having changed the positions of my PC desk, and lamps in the room, just for the sake of the monitor, as well. Smudges and dust being so visible also drove me nuts .
So, let it not puzzle you. The preference is not merely productivity v. entertainment, and its cons are readily apparent when used for entertainment purposes, though not as intense (in a well-lit office, I would go crazy with a glossy display, while at home I just got annoyed by it). Hopefully we'll get good affordable LED displays one of these days, and not need either style of coating.
Windows scaling for high DPI displays is a joke compared to OSX. OSX multi-monitor support is a joke compared to Windows. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Scaling is not a Windows strength. That will likely change with Windows 10 but we aren't there yet.
Windows programs that scale well will continue to, but 10 won't change anything substantially, from what I've seen. The problem is one of planning and implementation. Windows gave the option to treat GUIs like paper, with real-world dimensions, but allowed them to not be, with either pixel alignments, or [bad] assumptions about 96 pixels = 1", and in particular, the ability to mix and match within forms that did not use fluid layouts. Those applications that scale badly need a monitor of high enough res for 100% scaling increments, or they look awful, and there is no real hope for them (try XP scaling, if it's just one important program, but that only works well maybe 20% of the time). Even at 100% increments, scaling filters would do well for the viewers, like those used by old game emulators, compared to the simple stretching. Unless they implement such edge-defining filters, Windows 7's scaling ais probably as good as it's going to get. Sadly, Linux/X GUIs have been regressing, lately, too, with independent DPIs, not set by the display server, and X going with 96 DPI, where it used to use reported (why?! It used to be awesome!).