Regarding workstations servers and mainframes   I believe that workstations and servers are classes of computers not sizes  For example consider the IBM Power  It is a server is it not From the page IBM seems to think so and it certainly fits the definition of a server with that being a computer that provides a services to clients Now consider the IBM Power  This too is a server is it  not IBM thinks so and it fits the definition  However the Power  is not a desktop It is nowhere near a desktop It is a rackmount IBMspeak framemount server as evidenced by its dimensions  cm x  cm x  cm and weight  kg I will personally give anyone who can fit this on an average office desk from Ikea a cookie  Now the Power  is not a rackmount server It is nowhere near a rackmount server It is a deskside server as evidenced by its dimensions  mm x  mm x  mm and weight  kg I will personally give anyone who can convince a Fortune  company that the Power  is a topoftheline rackmount server a cookie  Two very different machines both in hardware and form factor but they are still both classed as a server Clearly as evidenced by this servers can be in many form factors A server can be a desktop but it is not exclusively a desktop How the article is currently written seems to suggest that it is A server can also be a rackmount a tower a blade a deskside and a pedestal to name a few  Workstations also come in more form factors than just desktop Many servers are desktops as in horizontal and are small and light enough to be placed on a desk the second more historical definition of a desktop However they can also be in a deskside tower rackmountable or pedestal form factor just to name a few  This can be remedied by not using classes to determine size Instead use form factors such as blade rackmount deskside etc