Server 2008R2 is the newest version that will run well with that amount of RAM available. Newer versions would be almost uselessly slow with anything below 8GB of RAM.

Hi
Good notice!

You could Run Windows 2012R2 on this if it's not a very Ram intensive load.

   If the issue is mostly ram, you could always install 2012R2 or 2008R2 headless to reduce the overhead from the GUI, (Although it's a minimal benefit).

Also go through and disable any services you don't need and don't install any features you won;t be using regardless of server version.

Finally, keep in mind that Windows 2008R2 is the Windows 7 Code-base and will be EOL In JANUARY 2020.  While Windows 2012R2 Code-Base is The same as Windows 8.1 and will be EOL in January 2023

I doubt that a server version will run any better if windows 7 runs poorly on it... Server 2008 R2 uses the same base kernel as Win 7, and unless you install a server core version I doubt it is any better...

Even using Win7 core doesn't the Server version better manages network requisitions?
The trouble I'm having.

Server versions by default will assign more processor power to load instead of interactive processes, but it is a small margin at best... There are much better servers out there for a song on places like EBay...

This case is a Philantropic Institution with low resources. We need to use this PC.

Either way, win 7 and 2008 R2 server will be off support in less than a year... I would really try to scavenge some more ram at least.

Server 2008 R2 uses the same base kernel as Win 7

One major difference between Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 is that Aero is not installed and desktop-level visual enhancements are disabled. This significantly reduces the memory footprint of the OS. The minimum RAM requirement is 512MB and 2GB is recommended. Windows 7 recommendations are double that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#Hardware_requirements

With only 4G, you've very limited regards run speed, because every Windows version ever released will likely start swapping, even before you start running server processes.

I'd strongly suggest you only run Linux on this hardware.

For Windows... start with 32G+ of RAM... if you'll be running much of anything at all.

Keep in mind any spare memory will be used for file i/o buffering, so the more memory you can install, the better.

What are you trying to achieve here?

What is it that you wan this machine to do?

For most scenarios, Windows7 would be a better choice than a server version. Unless you plan to use a pirated operating system, its cost will exceed that of the hardware you are running on by several times.

Windows Server 2012 shares the kernel with Windows 7.  

As noted above 4GB of ram is bare minimum for Windows 7 - 8 GB is normal. Servers need 16 GB or more.

If I were you (and since you have to reformat to install Server of any kind), consider staying with Windows 7 on this machine until you can upgrade the machine.

Use the manufacturer's hardware test app to test the hardware and disk, backup, install Windows 7 fresh and check performance. If decent, upgrade the ram and move on.

What app is slow?

i see the performance index is a 1 .
Please show the screen with all of the benchmarks so we can see where your bottlenecks are.

W7 works fine in 2 gigs ram,but you may be having I/O issues with slow disks and you may want to replace those disks with SSD.
1 TB SSD is dirt cheap at $129 bucks these days
Easiest way to speed up your system by 2 or 3X is to replace the old style mechanical; disks with SSD.

agreed to the above, but for 129 $ he can buy a better pc, with better cpu and ram
and that is my suggestion : buy a better 2nd hand system !

Turn off Aero and all other features that you don't need.   Early Windows 7 ran just fine in 4 GB, but it's gotten quite bloated now.  Server versions actually run more smoothly, because they don't come with everything turned on, nor do they come with vendor cruft.

Hi
Thank you for the replies. I'm still reading then.
The use of the PC is just for file server (.DBF(s) ) to a Visual FoxPro app(s) that runs at clients PC(s).

I opened another question about

How do desabilitate "Aero" feature.

In Windows 7, Desktop Personalization and Themes, use the Classic Theme to eliminate Aero.  You can also uncheck most Performance setting is Advanced System Settings.

My resume, after reading:

First I'm going to mantain Win7, disabling Aero

They will probably change HD to SSL, also.

If the file's server  get an acceptable performance, stop here.

If not  my idea is to change SO to Windows Server2008R2.

Am I at a good path?

Tolerable path, but Server 2008 shared a Vista kernel and Server 2012 shares a Windows 7 kernel, so at the end here, if trying to run a server on this machine, try Server 2012.

But accordingly with;

Server 2008R2 is the newest version that will run well with that amount of RAM available.

I got a feeling that no matter what hardware you throw at the OS ,it's going to be an issue with the Foxpro app.
It won't use over 4 gigs of ram no matter what since it is a 32 bit app.

Whatever you do, that is a very lightweight machine to run a Server OS on.

The Visual FoxPro runs at client, only the .DBF(s)  resides at the files's Server- that resembles a database are located on the Server.
VFP uses 1,5MB memory - at client.

2008 R2 ad Win 7 will be similar performance.

But if it's just a file server, then win2012 is the better bet for the SMB optimizations and no need to optimize the Network config as well as for the continued support for 3 years.

  When you buy a license from MS it will be valid for all OSs through windows 2019, but windows 2012R2 would be fine on those specs for a file server, yes, slow to use the GUI, but not for serving files.

if you can upgrade the ram to 8 GB - do so ! it will speed up things also

if you can upgrade the ram to 8 GB - do so ! it will speed up things also

yes, but an SSD would probably do more in any scenario to help speed things up as it's a file server and these files do need to write to disk any changes from the client systems.

Server 2012 will run in 4 GB of RAM.  I have several clients with VMs that are set that way.  They could probably run with just 3GB, but people love even numbers.  Unless you start to run multiple desktop windows programs (e.g. chrome  / firefox) you will have no issues with it.

Tolerable path, but Server 2008 shared a Vista kernel and Server 2012 shares a Windows 7 kernel, so at the end here, if trying to run a server on this machine, try Server 2012.

Wrong... Server 2008 had the Vista kernel, 2008 R2 had the Win 7 kernel. 2012 had the win 8 kernel, and 2012 R2 had the 8.1 kernel...
2016 has the Win 10 kernel (currently the 1607 build)

i agree - but everything passes thru ram too

If the computer is just running as a file server, it will work fine with just 4GB RAM.  You only need more RAM if it's going to be someone's desktop and they start running  additional programs, mainly browsers and Office.  If you install a 32 bit OS, it will work great under 4GB RAM as a desktop OS.  A 64 bit OS would work better with 6GB or more if you run it as a desktop system, but a file server will benefit more from the SSD speed than from additional RAM above 4 GB.  The bottleneck will be the storage media and you don't need to load large chunks of storage into RAM to pass it through the network.  It's going to just immediately go to the network device.

The current suggested minimum RAM requirements for windows is 1 GB RAM for a 32 bit OS and 2 GB RAM for a 64 bit OS, and has been that way for the past 10 years.  You only need extra RAM mainly because Browsers and web pages have become so bloated now.  10 years ago it was about 10-30MB per browser window, but now a single page can easily reach 200-500 MB, unless you adblock and script block.

Based on your previous post about performance, I think it is still critical to find out what is slowing you down before you try to fix it.  If you're not running out of RAM, additional RAM is likely to provide little benefit (though may be a good upgrade if inexpensive enough).

If your network speeds are staying well below 100% (as shown in your other post), then upgrading a server to get faster networking speeds (if the server version made a difference) won't help.

You really need to analyze WHAT is keeping you from getting faster performance before you try to fix it.  You could spend time and money on the wrong thing and not improve your performance at all.

I'll use a race car as an analogy.  If you have slow lap times on the track because your tires slip under heavy acceleration or through the corners, modifying the engine for more horsepower won't give much improvement.

Identify your bottleneck, THEN sort out how to improve it.

If your file server is on a spinning disk, when was the last time you defragmented it?

hell if it's on a spinning disk actually you would do well to use SpinRite to check the disks and align the clusters.

Thank you very much for the outstanding support  everyone of you are giving me!!!
I asked then to defrag the HD also.
I'm waiting for some replies from the Philantropic Institution.
As soon as I get it I will give a position here.

Just remember the fact newer OS means slower shared files access... And this is valid namely when several concurrent users are accessing the file at the same time. Measurements show huge speed degradation for the following situations:
1. Exclusive file access by one user
2. Shared file access by one user
3. Shared file access by several concurrent users

Newer operating systems are optimized for non-concurrent file access. Once the concurrency occurs the speed is several times slower.

If you have the possibility to use Windows Server 2003 then go for it. The question is whether SSD drives will have drivers for this OS...
All newer systems will require SMB and oplocks tuning. (Remember SMB2 caused FoxPro index corruption since beginning.)
W2003 isn't supported OS but FoxPro is on the same wave... If your network isn't exposed to the outside world then you are fine.

BTW, we still don't know the total data size and the number of concurrent users.

Additional requirement or recommendation is "All clients should run on equal OS". Whereas English locales could be OK on different operating systems, other locales and non-machine collations could update indexes slightly differently which is resulting in corrupted indexes. This is not so critical for you but you should test the application thoroughly if the above conditions occur.

Hi

Very good approaches.
Since one of the providences taken by the customer is to porchase a SSD HD I'm going to open here a new question about its compatibility with Windows Server 2003.
The network isn't intensely used, 05 different VFP system operated by about no more than 05 or 06 clients simultaneously.
Next days the SSD will be mounted on a Win7 PC with some features related to user's interface disabled (Aero), so we will get more informations.

The new question opened.

For all the Experts participating:
Sorry the delay in finally reply present question, I have to wait my customer providences.

After analysis:

The mainly performance problem is related to my own VFP code.

But, after installing HD SSD, unable Aero on Win7 . the performance is quite good.
No needs of OS changes or infrastructure, by now.

Thank you for all the guidance!