open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Anybody tried EVE on Windows 7?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

ZinderX500
Caldari
Very Predictable Feedback
Posted - 2009.04.25 13:57:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: ZinderX500 on 25/04/2009 13:58:02
Originally by: Kara Mitsui
Meh, all this Vista hate is just hype, if you had actually tried it for a while and decided you didn't like it, then fine. I suspect most people who diss it, haven't.

I installed Vista as soon as I could get a copy, and have been running Windows 7 since the free beta was announced, and the differences aren't that great. Certainly not enough for people to say 'Vista as crap but Windows 7 is great', that's just nonsense.

I'm no MS fanboy but Vista was so much better than XP in so many ways it's just sad that people let themselves be brainwashed into using a 6-year-old OS when newer, better stuff is available.

And, er, you don't *have* to pay the earth for it, if you know where to look.

The only people I've seen with genuine problems with Vista were running some old or weird hardware configurations. I can understand people not wanting to upgrade hardware just to run Vista, but if that's the case, say 'Vista doesn't work with xxx and yyy hardware' instead of just slamming it.

Anyway, I run multiple eve clients on Windows 7 without any problems, I actually have a 128gb SSD as my boot drive, and Eve is installed on it as well. It screams along.

I also have two vid cards installed, a 9800gt and an 8800gt, each running a separate monitor, and Eve runs fine on both in windowed mode. I can't imagine you'd have any problems at all.

The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result.


This.

Originally by: Lord Fitz
9/10 people who hated Vista actually liked it when told it was a 'new operating system' in blind tests. Seems the most objectionable thing about it is the name, and that comes from people that don't run it. As soon as I turned off UAC it became 100x better than XP. The irony is that UAC is something other operating systems have been dealing with for years without the negative attention Vista got for it.

I lament having to use XP at work still sometimes.

Windows 7 hopefully people will actually make up their own minds instead of just being brainwashed.


And also this.

Originally by: SpaceSquirrels
LOL first win 7 is vista with a few tweaks. Mostly security and a few UI stuff like the UAC.
2nd vistas security is better than XP's
3rd for all those that hate the POP UP UAC message would you like to etc..... you can turn that off quite easily and it's not some uber HAXORS work around it's an option.

4th the UAC was actually implemented not to stop dumb dumb average joe customers, but bad programmers that could possibly implement controls and work arounds in bad places due to mistakes/negligence.

5th all you anti MS people/fear of the man. Gave right into the other man "steve jobs/mac" via their add campaign and because someone else told you vista was no bueno and macs are superior in every way possible. Macs are better at some things and PC's are better at others.

Christ do some research and think for your selves.

So yes win 7 does work fine...because it's already an OS called vista.


And this.

Cerebus Alteri
Posted - 2009.04.25 14:03:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
Originally by: Kara Mitsui

The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result.


ripping off OSX is kinda a tradition with MS lol


and mac rips stuff off windows all the time.

pot and the kettle if you going to play that game which os stole what from the other they both have lifted or imitated features off each other.


Illwill Bill
Svea Crusaders
Posted - 2009.04.25 14:04:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Illwill Bill on 25/04/2009 14:04:45
As others have stated, EVE runs well on Windows 7.
I've had a few problems with video drivers, but that's not CCP's or Microsoft's fault.

I've noticed a significant performance increase in Windows 7, both compared to XP and Vista, but I uninstalled it from my laptop, as the 3d-accelerated UI drains the battery fairly quick (the same applies to Vista with Aero enabled), and the new UI looks butt-ugly when i classic mode.

Edit: We all know that Workbench was first with everything anyway, so stop debating! Wink

DarkOrb UK
Posted - 2009.04.25 14:37:00 - [34]
 

Nice to know that eve runs on Windows 7…. Although Im a XP nut, and have made my own XP by deleting everything I don’t need or use… currently ive got my XP OS disk down to 189mb Very Happy and still learning about what else I can chuck from it… Long live XP! Oh! And EVE

DarkOrb

Kaahles
Deliverers of Pain
Posted - 2009.04.25 14:41:00 - [35]
 

No idea about the current beta version of windows 7 but I just read a few minutes ago that there will be some "advanced compatiblity mode" included in enterprises, ultimate and professional finals.
It's called "XP Mode" and simulates a XP system using microsofts virtual pc 7 as a basis. It will replace the old compatiblity mode which never worked right from the start. So I guess if it's released yeah it'll work but right now? No idea.

Dmian
Gallente
Gallenterrorisme
Posted - 2009.04.25 15:51:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Dmian on 25/04/2009 15:53:26

Well, the problem with XP is that it has been around for so long (almost 8 years!!!) that people don't remember how it was when it was lanched... Razz
Jeez! there's still people using Win 2K just because they didn't want to touch XP with a ten-foot pole, so they switched from 98 to the NT line of OSs.
Most of the XP die-hards now are young people who practically got into the PC world using it and never switched from 98SE to XP.
I've used classic Mac (Finder), Mac OS X, Windows from 3.11 onwards, Amiga OS, you name it... and I think Vista is not a bad system for new PCs with reasonable ammounts of RAM.
Yes, Windows 7 will be better than Vista, but it wouldn't be possible without Vista. It uses the same Kernel and shares a lot of the same code. And Microsoft chose to release a different OS before fixing a system that was perceived as flawed, but if it wasn't for that decision Vista could have received all the fixes and improvements of Windows 7 in a SP and Windows 7 could have been released much later.
The real problem is: if you are pretty fine with a 7 years old OS, should you upgrade? Do you really need the new OS? Why?
While Vista works fine for me I don't see any improvement in the way I use my machine. I pretty much do the same I used to do with XP, and will probably be doing the same in Windows 7. I never had security problems, or performance problems. So I'm just upgrading for the fun of it, to put it in a way. I could probably had upgraded the GPU, added more RAM and I could have had the same results.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2009.04.25 16:32:00 - [37]
 

I've tried to ditch XP for years, during Vista betas, upon release, one year in and then two years in when I upgraded to 6gb ram. Vista 64-bit was plagued with obscure kernel errors and RPC issues that gave me random BSOD. I don't think I've had more than 3 BSOD on XP in an install that was five years old.

It ****ed me off to the point where I installed Win 7 build 7000 when it came out as my main OS and its been fine ever since.

It might be more optimized than Vista, but I think people who claim its any sort of difference are just drinking the microsoft kool-aid. The performance differences between the three major microsoft OS are only subjectively felt on any decent computer.

I don't know if Windows 7 is that much of an improvement over Vista either, it seems like the same crap. The contextual explorer bar is still there and can't be removed. I still feel the need to disable UAC, and the major taskbar changes still need to be reverted to an extent.

Overall I don't care, as long as my hardware is utilized properly.

Kara Mitsui
Perkone
Posted - 2009.04.25 18:57:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you.

This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them.

The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs.

Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb.

Hariya
Posted - 2009.04.25 19:33:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Kara Mitsui
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you.

This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them.

The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs.

Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb.


Saying that something is going to be sweet although it obviously is not is even more stupid.

Obsidian Dagger
Nitrus Nine
Posted - 2009.04.25 19:45:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Kara Mitsui
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you.

This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them.

The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs.

Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb.


Saying that something is going to be sweet although it obviously is not is even more stupid.


You're a towel!

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.04.26 11:50:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Benzaiten Reverse
I was one of 1st to try Vista and runned it for over year and me as windows administrator almost throw my PC out of window during 1st week.
I gues vista was not that bad for average user that just run few programs at a time on it, but memory management on it was rely terrible and you notice it slowing down over time (4GB ram and 4.6GB paging file used once Shocked ) compared for average 1.5-3GB of memory and no paging at all in W2003.
I dont even mention really poor HW implementation in vista like slowing down disc controller speed from 492MB/s to purely caped 128MB/s (XP vs Vista) and graphic card running hot all the time.

W7 seems to be much better then Vista so i will give it try once its finished.


I tend to run 3 copies of Eve, multiple copies of visual studio, SQL Server, Photoshop and over 100 firefox tabs quite regularly, memory management is excellent, it actually 'uses' the memory you have, and frees it up when it needs it, unlike XP which tends to dump memory to disk when you do not need it to, causing delays as you retrieve it back into memory even though you never really needed the space. All memory 'used' in Vista, is not a bad thing like in XP, it handles memory differently, it intentionally USES more memory, without running into the problem of not having any free when needed. If you actually read up on Vista's memory management before installing it you would know it was going to display a higher memory used figure, and that this was going to cause a performance increase, rather than decrease.

I nearly threw Vista out the window the first week I got it, then I realised two things. 1) it was my new processor causing all the issues 2) UAC can be turned off (actually I knew this already but I really did 'try' to use it because of the security benefits).

The backwards compatibility in W7 and IE8 is absolutely awesome, particularly IE8, if only they had done that for IE7 my job would be a hell of a lot easier.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.04.26 11:54:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.04.26 12:11:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Lord Fitz
They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?
They should… Windows would benefit greatly from shedding a bunch of the legacy crap that's still in there, but people (including developers) aren't ready for it (UAC is a prime example). Inertia sucks… Crying or Very sad

Hariya
Posted - 2009.04.26 12:12:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Lord Fitz
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?


Whoa... Talk about being misinformed Rolling Eyes

Miss Xoco
Minmatar
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
Renaissance Federation
Posted - 2009.04.26 12:20:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Miss Xoco on 26/04/2009 12:28:29
Originally by: Neo Omni
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh...


Actually Vista is considered a side-grade....not better no worse just different.

I wouldnt consider it a sidegrade as Vista contains unique abilitys. Such as the DX10 and 30 bit color depth which is not possible on XP. However, from the "speed" Vista is slower, im not exactly sure why but Vista simply got a lot of additional datas and the hardware got much more work to do. Ingame however, Vista should be almost equal with the performance, at current time. It needed like 2 years to reach that state. I know, most EVE players obviously arnt looking at the graphics, so they probably wont notice any difference, not even if there is AA enabled or not.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.04.26 14:13:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Originally by: Hariya
Originally by: Obsidian Dagger
Vista *IS* a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet.


Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Rolling Eyes


They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?


Whoa... Talk about being misinformed Rolling Eyes


Irony.

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Lord Fitz
They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?
They should… Windows would benefit greatly from shedding a bunch of the legacy crap that's still in there, but people (including developers) aren't ready for it (UAC is a prime example). Inertia sucks… Crying or Very sad


Death to IE6 TBH.

No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still.

IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial.

Esharan
Caldari
Posted - 2009.04.26 14:44:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh...
This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve.


It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all.


Pro tip...

Get skills....

Its easy to disable that feature!

gg.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.04.26 14:57:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: ohhssnoess
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails

It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all.


You know you can turn that off, and that doing so only makes Vista slightly more secure than XP instead of way more secure. UAC != Vista, but UAC = where Vista got the rep from.


You been under a rock for awhile right? Conficker anyone?


The exploit it used was patched 2 months before it existed, it's virtually impossible to get if you have Vista, it effects XP/Win2k and Windows 2003.

Since vista updates itself and has built in defence against such things (defender) you have to pretty much deliberately install such things. If you're going to deliberately mess with your system to the point that you can get anything like this, you might as well install linux.

Still it's interesting to see virus the effect such a tiny portion of machines still infect more machines than run alternative OS's. I personally know more people that have lost all their files not knowing what they're doing on their linux boxes (and yet they are employed administering them) then I know people who've lost anything through virus's on windows machines in the last 10 years.

Quote:
I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick,


The way you get Conficker naturally is by clicking to run the exe when you insert a USB stick with it on there. Point proven.

NeoTech
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.04.26 15:18:00 - [49]
 

Does Windows 7 support horisontal span? cus vista doesn't, and that is why i absolutely HATE vista. Currently running it and trying to persuade myself to getting xp again.

Vista is in my oppinion, a huge downgrade from XP. I hope Windows 7 will be better than Vista.

SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
Posted - 2009.04.26 15:54:00 - [50]
 

^^^^^

Once again win 7 is Vista with security tweaks and some ui improvements, and limited performance tweaks...keyword limited. Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays.

Not sure if they're bringing it back in 7 topic of much debate. Also has something to do with nvidia, and ati drivers or some such.

Sade Onyx
Posted - 2009.04.26 16:09:00 - [51]
 

On my machine Vista64 runs Eve (and many applications) faster than it does with an XP installation, and windows 7 runs it at similar speeds (some games faster) but and looks and feels nicer than vista.

I'll be looking forward to the retail Cool

ZinderX500
Caldari
Very Predictable Feedback
Posted - 2009.04.26 17:13:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Lord Fitz


Death to IE6 TBH.

No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still.

IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial.


Hey Mr. Pro

Ever heard of "going with the standards" ?

Empyre
Chaotic Balance
Posted - 2009.04.26 18:59:00 - [53]
 

Win7 is what was promised for Vista but never delivered on. Vista is another WinME, that is to say an OS they would like everyone forget they heard about or paid for. If Micro$haft makes good on a really good upgrade deal to make up for this (I'll give them my copy of Vista gladly) then I will embrace Win7.. it really is a nice OS from what I've played with in beta so far. I'm just not going to accept them selling me a $200 product and having it fail miserably every second or third generation.

Vista gas gotten better, no doubt. I bought my first copy at release and nothing made me more angry than that PoS. Now it's relatively stable but still glitchy with some programs and it likes to dig into your hard drive platters and not go away, especially if you decide to just delete the windows directory.

Sjobba
Posted - 2009.04.26 22:27:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Sjobba on 26/04/2009 22:32:33
Originally by: ZinderX500
Originally by: Lord Fitz


Death to IE6 TBH.

No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still.

IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial.


Hey Mr. Pro

Ever heard of "going with the standards" ?


Yea. Are you seriously complaining about incompatibilities between Firefox versions, complimenting IE for compatibility?!
WTF have you been smoking?

Each version of IE (even minor versions) use different, non-standard rendering implementations, all of which are pretty much incompatible with each other, and at about the same level of technology the actual standards were 10 years earlier.
The fact that they have finally managed to produce a browser that can render them all does not impress me. (It's their own messed up non-standard implementations after all.)

If M$ had just followed the standard from the start, or just picked a single non-standard implementation for all it's versions, literally years of debugging, bug-hunting and writing workarounds to get things working on IE would have been saved.

The amount of time I have wasted translating perfectly fine code into something that sad excuse for a browser can understand is astounding.

... Gahh, now I'm all ticked of again. Always happens when people start talking about IE Laughing

Edit:
And o yea, Windows 7 beats Vista by a very large margin.
Tried it on my old laptop, which could barely even boot Vista... Almost runs as smooth as XP does.
Driver support is kind of sketchy, but hey... it's only a beta. Can't expect it to be perfect yet.
Haven't run into any major problems yet, but it doesn't seem to prompt you with 30 confirmation windows every time you move the mouse... which is a plus.

And it seems to run most Vista compatible apps fine, so games and such should work OK. (Given that you can actually find proper drivers for you hardware.)

Highly recommend people try it if they can. (Not that I would recommend using a beta OS on your main system.)

Rathelm
Posted - 2009.04.27 00:48:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
Originally by: Kara Mitsui

The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result.


ripping off OSX is kinda a tradition with MS lol


Except for the part that MS OS has 80% of the market share and the Apple OS has about 10%.

Draeca
Tharri and Co.
Posted - 2009.04.27 02:10:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: SpaceSquirrels
Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays.

I am complaining. No matter how cheap ram is, 2gb is way too much to be required and wasted on running the OS itself.
I really wonder how much could be cut from that number by reducing the amount of useless crap running, or just by giving an option for advanced installation where you'd only have the really basic system installed and the power to choose what else YOU want to install with it.

The power of today's average computer is still, and will always be a horribly bad excuse for not keeping it simple and clean.

Information Broker
Posted - 2009.04.27 02:23:00 - [57]
 


Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2009.04.27 02:28:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Draeca
Originally by: SpaceSquirrels
Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays.

I am complaining. No matter how cheap ram is, 2gb is way too much to be required and wasted on running the OS itself.
I really wonder how much could be cut from that number by reducing the amount of useless crap running, or just by giving an option for advanced installation where you'd only have the really basic system installed and the power to choose what else YOU want to install with it.

The power of today's average computer is still, and will always be a horribly bad excuse for not keeping it simple and clean.


QFT - How much do we really need in an operating system? A process scheduler, hardware abstraction layer, kernel API and MAYBE a desktop environment to make managing files/applications easier... Everything else should be optional, TBH

Leon Caedo
Posted - 2009.04.27 03:03:00 - [59]
 

I honestly don't understand why people feel 'cool' by bashing vista. No, you don't get to join the cool kids club just by bashing vista.

I got vista after SP1, and I've never had any problems with it at all.


Vista's search functions and networking is SO much better than XP. My laptop has XP and it randomly decides to (a) disappear from the network, (b) create its own network, and (c) actually appear on the network, but refuse to let me do anything with the files.

On Vista, I've NEVER had networking problems. XP's networking is a nightmare. I also don't go with in 10 miles of the search functions on XP - unless I have nothing to do for 2 hours while it searches. On my vista desktop, its nearly instant.

Vista is a memory hog though; XP is definitely more efficient at memory. But then again I have 64 bit and ram coming out of my butt, so its no bigy.

I do agree that windows 7 is going to be kick a$$.

SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
Posted - 2009.04.27 14:32:00 - [60]
 

Lol @ the people and their ram complex... you need 4gb to run games nowadays @ any decent settings as is.... fail.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only