IBM sucks as a company. Their computer are low quality, their commercials are annoying++, their servers suck at being compatible with anything, and their support sucks even more.
Yes, they've done some innovative things, but if I had to choose between Dell, HP, or IBM servers, I'd definitely choose Dell or HP.
I definitely agree. They have made some of the most important discoveries in the computer industry, which is why they've earned my respect.
Oh yeah. I'd never buy an IBM computer or server; given your list, I think I'd choose HP. I do recognize that Dell makes great servers too, though.
All the Dell servers I've come across blow goats. I should move to Canada.
You've obviously not encountered very many servers, then...
I really like the Dell 1550's, really simple, and work well. The 2550's work good too, from what I've seen, but we only had 2 and they were hardcore database servers, so I tried to avoid them. Plus, their support isn't awful (not good, but not horrible). 
Hehe, I haven't worked with too many Dell servers but the few that I have (our Court House has a few that I've worked with a little bit) work really well. At my school, we have a few whitebox servers (four, they're the active directory/file/dhcp/dns/gateway servers. We have another box that's a backup server, but it's just a computer we ninja'd from one of the faster computer labs), two HP Proliant (I'm unsure of the model -- they're Citrix boxes so their specs are pretty insane for a small district) boxes, two boxes for NAS (which does most of the file storage in combination with a RAID tower) that actually have Linux on them!! :O All of them work very well, especially considering most of them run Windows 2003.
