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 service s to client s 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 ibm speak 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 top of the line 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