Can you install Windows 7 on a Intel compute stick?

heatlesssun

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,157
Those sticks use either Atom Bay Trail or the newer Cherry Trail SoCs that never had official support under Windows 7. It's probably possible, I've not seen anything on others trying to install Windows 7 on devices with these Atoms before. I'd say that Windows 10 is probably better suited for these kinds of devices anyway. Linux distros are officially support on some of them as well.
 

bigdogchris

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
17,953
Windows 10 would be even better to run on a devices like this. Specifically, outside of what heat mentioned, Windows 10 allows you to compact the OS files to take up less room on the tiny 32GB of storage.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
Windows 10 would be even better to run on a devices like this. Specifically, outside of what heat mentioned, Windows 10 allows you to compact the OS files to take up less room on the tiny 32GB of storage.
W7 does this too.
 

heatlesssun

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,157
Thats different, more of an automatic function for specific files. I am talking about compressing the NTFS file system in its entirety.
The stuff we're talking about is for minimizing the footprint of a Windows install. NTFS compression isn't recommended for system files.
 
Last edited:

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
The stuff we're talking about is for minimizing the footprint of a Windows install. NTFS isn't recommended for system files.
You're not very technical, are you? NTFS most certainly is recommended for the OS partition and has been since XP.

Stop trying to be Microsoft's marketing arm when you don't understand what you are talking about.
 

Tiberian

DILLIGAFuck
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
5,725
The stuff we're talking about is for minimizing the footprint of a Windows install. NTFS isn't recommended for system files.
What is this... I don't even... ;)

Considering NTFS has been the primary file system for Windows for a long time now - and it has always been the recommendation for NT-based versions of Windows because they're the ones that were designed for business/commercial use (you know, some level of actual administrative control over the system at the file system level which FAT/FAT32 cannot provide or support) until Vista came around and started using NTFS by default - I would have to say that seemed like a really odd statement from you considering your experience and knowledge with Windows systems.
 

B00nie

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
8,168
What is this... I don't even... ;)

Considering NTFS has been the primary file system for Windows for a long time now - and it has always been the recommendation for NT-based versions of Windows because they're the ones that were designed for business/commercial use (you know, some level of actual administrative control over the system at the file system level which FAT/FAT32 cannot provide or support) until Vista came around and started using NTFS by default - I would have to say that seemed like a really odd statement from you considering your experience and knowledge with Windows systems.
Huh, heatlessun comes around as windows know-it-all and now this? Is his account hijacked or was he always just a troll?
 

heatlesssun

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,157
You're not very technical, are you? NTFS most certainly is recommended for the OS partition and has been since XP.

Stop trying to be Microsoft's marketing arm when you don't understand what you are talking about.
What is this... I don't even... ;)

Considering NTFS has been the primary file system for Windows for a long time now - and it has always been the recommendation for NT-based versions of Windows because they're the ones that were designed for business/commercial use (you know, some level of actual administrative control over the system at the file system level which FAT/FAT32 cannot provide or support) until Vista came around and started using NTFS by default - I would have to say that seemed like a really odd statement from you considering your experience and knowledge with Windows systems.
LOL! I left out "compression" and yes NTFS is not recommended for system files: http://www.howtogeek.com/133264/how-to-use-ntfs-compression-and-when-you-might-want-to/. And as for being technical, we weren't originally talking about NTFS compression anyway. And you probably DON'T want to use NTFS compression on an Atom based system with eMMC storage anyway.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
Compression has its drawbacks for sure, and W10 does some cool stuff with it, but to say earlier versions dont compress the OS partition along with system files is just plain ignorant.

I dont like W10 in general, but it does have some advantages, like fast boot times.
 

Tiberian

DILLIGAFuck
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
5,725
OL! I left out "compression" and yes NTFS is not recommended for system files: http://www.howtogeek.com/133264/how-to-use-ntfs-compression-and-when-you-might-want-to/.
I can appreciate that website has to post articles to feed ads to survive like most but, that entire tidbit about NTFS compression not being recommended for system files is utterly ludicrous. Been using that for many years now without a single issue - yes that's my case scenario and no I can't say others might have had the same experience but what I can say is that you'll never find anyone at Microsoft that would dare say it's not recommended for system files in general or even specific case scenarios.

The type of advanced compression that Windows 10 offers (Xpress8K, Xpress16K, and LZX) is not the same thing as the standard compression style used from Explorer and is done from the command line on an as-needed basis (since it can be configured so granularly). They offer better compression than the typical NTFS stuff that's been around for a long time now (based on the original "DoubleSpace" compression that was part of MS-DOS 6 long long ago, just simple compression that offers up to 2:1 ratios but is incredibly fast in operation).

But saying compression is bad for any file system, that's insane, really. Hell, it even helps improve performance on today's monster processor based hardware, even with SSDs things get faster overall when file system compression is enabled, it doesn't hurt performance on modern machines, not at all.
 

heatlesssun

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,157
Compression has its drawbacks for sure, and W10 does some cool stuff with it, but to say earlier versions dont compress the OS partition along with system files is just plain ignorant.

I dont like W10 in general, but it does have some advantages, like fast boot times.
I never said that you can't compress entire volumes. But NTFS compression of system files in NOT RECOMMENDED. That's not what the Windows 10 image compression is anyway and it's not available in Windows 7. And I seriously doubt anyone would want to compress an volume on eMMC storage with an Atom SoC for performance reasons, which is why Microsoft came up with these new methods since a lot of Windows 10 devices run on this type of hardware.

And back the original problem with Windows 7 on this type of hardware, there is no official support. You'd only have desktop apps and on low end hardware there are performance reasons UWAs can have advantages. There a number of video content apps like Netflix, Hulu, Sling, etc. that will perform better than web sites, especially ones that use Flash.
 

bigdogchris

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
17,953
W7 does this too.
NTFS compression and OS Compaction are two completely different things. So no, Windows 7 does not do what I was talking about.

I would never use NTFS compression on a system drive (C:\). I don't like using it on non-system drives if I can help it (except maybe log folders).
 

heatlesssun

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,157
But saying compression is bad for any file system, that's insane, really. Hell, it even helps improve performance on today's monster processor based hardware, even with SSDs things get faster overall when file system compression is enabled, it doesn't hurt performance on modern machines, not at all.
I didn't say that NTFS compression was bad for anything. I said it's not recommended for system files. Period. And we're talking about an Atom SoC based systems here, hardly a monster processor. Slow CPU and storage aren't going to work well with compression, that's the worst possible combination.

Don't know why some want to overanalyze this. The OP question was about Windows 7 on Atom Bay Trail and Cherry Trail Intel compute sticks. That's not officially supported. The new Windows 10 footprint compression methods are specifically for these kinds of devices, because of the small capacity and slow performance. And you really don't want to use NTFS compression on an Atom SoC combined with eMMC storage. Pretty cut and dry and non-controversial stuff here.
 

bigdogchris

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
17,953
Think about all of the writes compression causes when every single file that is changed needs to be unpacked and re-written. That would cause havoc on this type of NAND.
 

pxc

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Intel makes Bay Trail drivers for Windows 7 Embedded 32-bit and 64-bit, which I think should work on other versions of Windows 7. https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24548/Intel-Embedded-Drivers-for-Windows-7-32-bit-64-bit- Bay Trail-T drivers for Windows 7 are here: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/product/85552/Intel-HD-Graphics-for-Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3700-Series

There doesn't seem to be the same for Cherry Trail, probably because some of the hardware interfaces had support added in 8.0 or 10.
 

BulletDust

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
6,057
Compute sticks are impressive little devices, but naturally fairly limited power wise. While compressing files under W10 makes perfect sense considering the storage capacity of the devices, wouldn't decompression suck up system resources making the device far less responsive?
 
Top