$300 for that system? WOW.
If you're doing that, I advise buying TWO of these as you're going to want to have hardware on hand at the data center should something go wrong so you can swap out hardware.

There's much more to hosting a server than just plugging a machine into a network. Having an emergency plan and backup hardware on hand for when the server failes (and it will fail) are all necessary. This is part of what a $139/month price would pay for.

I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that price.
Good point Conor- having backup hardware on hand at the data center would sure expedite the recovery process.

Yes, in case that everything will be ok with the Hardware, but if you want to resetup OS, then in most DC you'll need to pay additional 75-100$ per hour for admin time .
if something happened on your server, you need to contact DC and pay for admin time mentioned sum of money, and who knows how much time they will need to resolve your problem. If something happened with Hardware ... you'll need to pay for the new one, and this is extra money.
So I think that it will cost you more.. as in such cases you can have a lot of downtime .

And check the dedicated server, yes you will pay extra money... but, if you need to re-install OS... it's free... something happened, just make a ticket and support will help you to resolve the problem for free. If something happened with the Hardware ... with the dedicated solution this hardware will be changed for free.

So as for me dedicated solution is the best if you want to have 1-10 servers. But of course if you willing to have 15+ servers, then the best way wil be to go to colo and rent the whole RACK, but APC reboot and KVM/IP... hire some sys-admin who will be able to check the server and if necessary, repair it via KVM/IP. OF course in case if Hardware will fail... you'll need to buy the new one.
Cheers.

I totally agree with Steve, and since you aren't an admin of any sort, some sort of management might need to be in order. Also, most ISP's really frown on hosting content for the web from home.

From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't host a server at my house. A lot of ISPs wouldn't be too pleased with the idea either.

That made me good laugh.

You can lease a server for very reasonable price and free yourself from all the headache of hosting your own server.

I would think that hosting your sites from your home would be a step down from renting a dedicated server. What you should be thinking about is colocating a server. Colocation can sometimes be more expensive, but can work out really great if you go with the right company.

Some things to consider are how long-term your plans are, if you need a lot of additional speed, if you need a more fail safe server, if you're willing to deal with the usually small inconvenience of managing the hardware aspects, etc.

Long-term, I think colo is generally a better idea than renting dedicated servers but there are benefits to staying with dedicated servers, though.