Severs Schmervers

I am reformatting a server today, and I have documented the difference between a server and a desktop machine:

A Server Must:

1. Cost much more than a desktop
2. Use new or rare hardware
3. Stay on all the time.

A Desktop Must:

1. Cost much less than a server
2. Use new but common hardware
3. Turn on and off, or stay on, depending on the user.
   

Here's where I get confused:
My computer at home stays on 24/7. If it weren't for my paying my own electric bill, my uptime would be measured in years. My computer has over 120GB of storage, a CD Burner, 6 USB ports, 512MB of RAM, a 17" Flat Pannel monitor, and a rather nice looking keyboard.
This computer cost me about $700 when I made it.

Had I spent an extra $500, I could have opted for a better processor, more RAM, and 500GB of hot-swappable SATA striped RAID.

But, if I wanted to serverize it, I would be required to instead spend at least $2,000 more on 2 processors running at half the speed of my current one, 72GB of SCSI RAID, 2 extra PSUs, and the same amount of RAM (only ECC this time).

Fortunately for me, I'm too cheap to serverize things. Either I am super-lucky, or IT units are super-scared. For $2,835 I could get 900GB of SCSI Goodness, or for $696 I can get 1200GB of SATA goodness.
The argument I hear most is that SCSI is the most reliable. I remember reading that too, back when it was SCSI v. IDE. But now that we've got SATA, I'm not so sure. And even if SCSI is more reliable, with the money I've saved, I could buy another 3,687GB of SATA storage! So if SATA is so much worse, and it caused me to swap out drives every 6 months, I could go for 4 years and still end up ahead! (and by then my 400GB SATA drive would be dirt cheap, which would extend server life yet another 4 years probably.)

But let's be realistic, how many times do you have to swap out drives, and with 5 year warranties on each drive, you only need one extra, then RMA the bad one, and wait for the new drive in the mail for free!

Now, onto processors. Nowadays, I could just buy a socket 939 board and put in whatever AMD 64 I want, including their dual core processors. I could even spend out the extra $$ and get a server board that would run dual Opterons, while still staying far below the cost of SCSI drives alone!

So I guess I like servers, but I just don't like "corporate" servers, with SCSI RAID, Redundant Power, and underperforming processors. I'd rather go SCSI SATA, a good Battery powered UPS, a couple of nice dual core Athlon 64's, and some nice non ECC low latency RAM.