Forums Feature Suggestions Webcam

Hi guys,

Khaled could add one webcam module on mIRC. This would be veryyy good, a lot of ppl go to msn cuz mIRC doesnt have webcam.

You can bet with me, mIRC with webcam would be the best ever, no more msn/aim

Maybe webcam in DCC Chat or a new window. No problem. Just add webcam to mIRC and we will see.

Please mIRC staff and Khaled add webcam to mIRC, The IRC users will be pleased forever with this.

Best,
Debug

Webcams/Voice chats has been suggested many times before, use the Search feature, expand to 'All Forums' and 'All Posts' for best results, and you'll find plenty of posts discussing it.

Regards,

I, for one, wouldn't be pleased if this was added. It would just bring a new generation of people into public chatrooms and sending out private messages asking random people if they have a webcam, which is very annoying.

In my opinion, mIRC should stay away from anything webcam related, it's fine just the way it is.

i agree, mirc was always text based chat program and it would be fair to stay like this...
but if author would be smart he would add web cam coz it would bring more users to use mirc and therefore he would get more money (exept from those who use keygens)

You don't really care about Khaled getting more money, you just want to see webcam added in mirc. If somebody would ask me, I would say that it's a bad idea, becouse mirc is irc client (irc is internet relay chat) and irc doesn't support webcams, so why would mirc do that?

this is what dlls are for

read my post AGAIN
THINK
THEN comment it

Just call me thick.

Can you please explain (in a balanced business case) why adding WebCam support would bring more users to mIRC?

As part of that explanation, can you please address the increased bandwidth usage, privacy concerns and software blaot that comes with such an issue, and how these negatives are outweighed by the advantages you foresee?

Thanks,

DK

"Can you please explain (in a balanced business case) why adding WebCam support would bring more users to mIRC?"

because todays kids want that ?
because for same reason todays kids use msn more than mirc ?

'Today's kids' use MSN more than any other IRC/IM client because it's basically forced upon them by Microsoft. They don't have to download anything, they don't have to learn how to use it, all they do is sign up and they're set.

IRC clients tend to require a basic knowledge in IRC or the client itself and other IM clients like Yahoo! Messenger have to be downloaded.

In my opinion it has nothing to do with functionality, but convenience.

It doesn't have to be supported in IRC. There's a DCC VIDEO protocol already in existence, there's no reason it shouldn't be supported.

Today's kids want webcam in mIRC? Well you haven't consulted with my kids.

In my opinion webcams would take away not add to the quality of mIRC. Besides the lag that a webcam would add to your miRC, there's no longer the element of *imagination* in thinking on how someone looks like. Most people don't even concern themselves with that. All they want are good conversations between IRC friends.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Talea

- Didn't you just make the same kind of assumptions about "most people" that Debug made about "today's kids"?

I don't see why support for DCC VIDEO would cause mIRC to lag. It's not like you'd immediately have a video connection with everyone on IRC. It would be no different from any other form of DCC - someone has to specifically request a session and the recipient can either accept or decline. For someone like yourself (or myself for that matter) who didn't want to use it, you'd never have to.

What MSNM have that mIRC doesnt have? Sound and Webcam.

mIRC with sound and webcam , I am sure that this will bring more users. Why?

For chat, mIRC is better than MSNM.
To make new friends, mIRC is better than MSNM.
To have support, mIRC is better than MSNM.
To have support in one program, mIRC is better than MSNM.
To chat with Sound and Webcam, MSNM is better than mIRC.

Need more?

Why are you sure that adding webcam will bring more users?

Changing something in the environment (e.g. adding WebCam) changes the dynamics, so the benefits of the change need to outweight the downsides (previously listed).

In addition, we need to be careful not to confuse IRC with other messaging media, anymore than we should not confuse a word processor with a spreadsheet.

By requesting that WebCam be added to mIRC, you are implicitly requesting that IRC include support for streaming video and sound.

If you want to use other protocols to support this "sight and sound extravaganza", then would it not be simpler to run another application (already optimised for this) next to your instance of mIRC?

Cheers,

DK

By requesting that WebCam be added to mIRC, you are implicitly requesting that IRC include support for streaming video and sound.

And Why Google added "1GB email"? Why Microsoft added the "msn messenger"? Why Altavista added "online traslator"? Why Mozilla added "mail client" and "irc client"? The most famous programs/companies left their "primary views" and created other views.

Just to have more users and open the features that they have. Why mIRC cant do this? There isnt nothing to lose with this. Only win!

amen !

Let's take a look at the 'downsides' we've had so far shall we?

• Video support will hurt mIRC as a text chat client.
  - Why? The two are not mutually exclusive.
• I don't want mIRC to become an instant messenger.
  - That's fair enough in some respects, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion for mIRC that already exists in an IM is immediately going to transform mIRC into one. Look at the suggestion objectively and stop worrying about where it came from.
• What about added bandwidth?
  - Added bandwidth to who? The video stream would be over DCC so IRC servers would not be affected one bit. As for the clients, well, if you don't want the extra bandwidth use then just don't accept DCC VIDEO requests.
• What about privacy?
  - What about it? How is video chat any more of a privacy concern than text chat?
• What about software bloat?
  - You don't know there'll be software bloat and I don't know that there won't. It's pointless for us to argue about it because we'd just be guessing. All we can do is talk about the actual feature suggestion and let Khaled worry about implementation details and whether it's worthwhile.
• People will confuse mIRC with other messaging media.
  - I have no idea what the hell that means. But nonetheless DCC VIDEO and SOUND protocols already exist and have already been implemented in some IRC clients, so I don't see how mIRC supporting what's already available and in use on IRC will make it appear as less of an IRC client.

Bottome line: I don't care if DCC VIDEO brings more users. I don't particularly care whether DCC VIDEO is supported or not since I'll probably never use it myself, but so far not one person has given what I would consider a reasonable argument against it.

I really don't see any reason to add it.

Edit: Except maybe becouse of few people here who likes webcam. But then again, they have hundred of programs that they can use for webcam chat, so why changing mirc when some of us likes it the way it is.

Can we all just agree that some people want it, some don't, and that nobody is going to come up with some super-convincing argument that hasn't already been used a hundred times, and LET THIS THREAD DIE? If Khaled wants it, it will be there. Reading the same thing restated a dozen times tires me. </tirade>

- So if you had your way there'd be no more features ever then? If you like it the way it is then if DCC VIDEO support is added you can ignore it and you'll like it just the same.

Maybe, and maybe not...

Why 'maybe not'? Would you lie in bed at night in a cold sweat just knowing that if someone sent you a DCC VIDEO request you could choose to accept or decline it? The horror.

Thats why I made this suggestion.

We know that maybe 20% or less of the mIRC users uses the SSL supp and mIRC have this feature. So why cant do this with webcam?

If you like SSL, use it.
If you dont like SSL, ignore it.

If you like webcam, this feature would be very welcome.
And if you dont like webcam, just give a chance to who wanna this and ignore.

i agree. the webcam support would make mirc more useful, and who dont want this feature can do a simple dcc ignore on dcc sound and dcc video requests and never worry about this. it's like color support (that can be stripped), ctcp sound (that can be ignored), and etc.
the program will not change in any way for those that dont use this feature; but it will become very better for the people that need this feature.

I think it would only be compatible with other mIRC users, wouldn't it?

Take Linux clients, for example. I've not looked greatly in to this subject, but I have read somewhere that the reason video chat isn't (as of yet) incorporated in to IM clients is because of the way the two OS' handle the images from the webcams.

I don't know whether or not this is true, but if it is, I'd say that's a good reason for a webcam feature to not be added.

Yes, if the video streaming could only be implemented in a way that prevented it's use across a wide range of systems then it would be better not to have it at all. I believe Ircle's /dcc sendvideostream uses Quicktime, which is available on all major platforms (I think) and so could presumably be supported by any clients; unfortunately it's a proprietary format which is something it would be better to avoid. I don't know the details behind other DCC VIDEO implementations (or even how many differing DCC video-streaming implementations there have been). Perhaps when OGG Theora reaches maturity it will be the best bet for an open standard, multi-platform video stream.

Hopefully there's someone on the boards who knows more about these things then me that can clear this up; I'm certainly no expert on the matter.

maybe dcc video can be multi-format, so the users choose between, lets say, quick time, .avi (with divx, xvid or any other codec installed), .mpg, and other formats. dcc sound can be streamed with mp3, ogg ou .wav, as the choice of the user. the qualify of both of dcc video and audio may be configured, too, and the standard configurations would be as small as it can.
so the problem with multi-plataform will be soilved, since at least one of these formats are supported by linux/mac/etc programs.

The idea is that I don't want mirc to become just another multimedia program...
So... maybe, and maybe not...

Edit: Let Khaled deside, if he likes it, I don't have a problem with it, I'll just use older mirc version...

It won't be "just another multimedia program" because of all the other features it has.

There are many programs with many other features, and they are still multimedia programs...

This is directed not only to you but to a LOT of people that have the same weird attitude. The weird part is that you almost deliberately avoid stating a reason for the feature not to be added. You said two things:

"I really don't see any reason to add it."
This is an answer to the exact opposite question. We aren't asking you for a reason to add it, we're asking for a reason not to add it.

"The idea is that I don't want mirc to become just another multimedia program."
How adding something ("add" means old features + new features), changes mirc from your favorite IRC client to "just another multimedia program"? More the point, how adding something hurts the already existing functionality?


Yet such reason surely must exist, and it must be good, since you're willing to stick to older versions (if video support is added) and deprive yourself of other useful features of newer versions. So, I really wonder, what is it?

I am not sure why I don't like the idea of adding webcam support, maybe becouse mirc was always text based chat program and I like it that way.
I have nothing more to say.

mIRC is still primarily a text-based chat client, but it stopped being just that long ago.

Further to my questions earlier about reasons to add webcam; and a reason to not add it:

A really big problem in projects is the desire of "customers" to "gold-plate" the product. This adds time and complexity to building it. Further more, it enhances unreal expectations of the customer that the product can be "everything to everyone".

Thus, every feature suggestion would have to be looked at - to see if it really adds to the intent of the product, or if it is just gold-plating.

mIRC is an IRC client. IRC is (by its very definition) a text-based chat. Video is not text.
mIRC supports sounds, but only in the context that the commands to play sounds are sent in the text portion. The sounds themselves are played by another progam, usually using files that already exists on the client's PC.
If mIRC were to support video, then it would occur in a similar way. This would mean that mIRC itself will not support webcam, but that IRC would support a text command that would enable clients to recognise that a particular file should be played by a nominated application. I would be surprised if that infrastructure was not already in place.

ON CTCP:VIDEO:/play <file name or URL>

Come to think of it, would not the existing commands to play sounds achieve the same purpose? After all, Windows Media Player coud be the chosen application for that particular file extension.


If this is the case, then WebCam support does not need to be added!

To provide an analogy - I would like my family car to be able to transport Cargo on occasions, I would also like it to park in city parking spots and go bush and be used for racing. These activities are largely incompatible with the concept of the family car. I can achieve that by using different vehicles (applications). In the case of transporting cargo, I can buy a trailer (add-on), but the only thing I have to do to the car is to buy a tow-bar/ball (hook). In mIRC/IRC's case - the hook already exists.

To go back to the original point ( We aren't asking you for a reason to add it, we're asking for a reason not to add it. ). The hooks already exists - no need to add further support, and Video is outside the original concept of text-based chat (again no need to gold-plate - use an application that is optimised for the purpose).

Cheers,

DK

- Yeah. So lets never add any more features. Ever. After all, we don't want to get anyone's hopes up. This crazy idea of listening to users suggestions/requests is spiralling out of control, if we don't curtail it now who knows what tomorrow's feature suggestors might bring. Won't somebody please think of the children?!



- If mIRC is an IRC client plain and simple then there's no reason for /splay, sockets, binary variables, file handling, or pretty much about 90% of the scripting language. Just because mIRC is an IRC client doesn't mean it must be an IRC client in the most spartan sense of that term.



- Of course it requires support in mIRC because we're talking about streamed content being sent over a sub-protocol of a sub-protocol of IRC. It's nothing like a sound request.

To the people that dont want Webcam supp:

Adding Webcam, your life will be more bad? Will you die with just a new feature that you wont use but another xxx users will love it. Give me just one reason against the webcam...

Remember:
Adding = Old + New
So stop saying that mIRC wont be only text based cause you dont need to use this feature.

Dont like webcam? Just ignore it...

I didn't want to write anymore to this subject but I guess I have to.

mIRC was always text based irc client, so I am not against new features, I am just agains those that will make mirc something that it never was (multimedia client). That's reply for you starbucks_mafia.
Next, I didn't say mirc was just text based irc client, but generally it is/was text based client, so in my oppinion if you add webcamera to it, people will not use it for "text chating" and it will no longer be primary text based irc client and he always was that with features that are already added to it.

Reply to you Debug: When you add anything to any program, it's size become bigger and program becomes slower... the same is for mirc... if it's bigger I don't mind, but I don't want it to be slower. So, I can't just ignore something that will make mirc slower. If it is some patch it's ok, but you can't add anything to mirc. (it's primary a text based irc client, and always was). So, Debug... use other (many) programs that will let you use webcam, and let us who likes text based chat to enjoy in mirc.

I hope I will not have to write to this subject again.

It will only make mIRC noticeably slower if you accept a webcam request sent by somebody else, no human could notice such a tiny difference in speed that adding a few extra lines to the executable would add (that's if it affects speed at all).

If webcam support were added, people would still need to type to each other, they could just see each other at the same time. My friend recently got a webcam and she uses it all the time on MSN Messenger - at the same time, chats via typing to the person she's viewing and/or being viewed by. The same could be done for mIRC, people aren't going to stop typing and instead just stare at each other.

Personally, I am in support for some sort of webcam feature, I think they're a great invention.

I see little need for you to use older versions of mIRC if webcam support were created, it wouldn't change the look of mIRC or anything - or would it just be some sort of boycott?

My 2 cents.

Regards,

You don't know if it will be just a few extra lines. You don't know if it will be noticeably slower or not.
You just know that it WILL be bigger, and slower...

Mentality, if you want, you can find an answer in my other posts on this subject. I have nothing more to say.
And let Khaled deside, and then I will see that new mirc (if he deside to add webcamera) and deside if I will use it, but that has nothing to do with any other people, it's my personal problem. AND THAT'S NOT A REASON FOR KHALED NOT TO ADD WEBCAMERA IF HE WANT'S TO, it's my personal desicion.

I said it will not be primary text based client anymore (MSN is not primary text based client) and mirc is.

Wait, if mIRC is a text based program, then why is there dcc, picture windows, dialogs, sockets, and scripting?

Do you want to say that mirc is not primary, globaly a text based program? That it main purpose is not text based chat?

Your arguement is flawed. You don't want to see a webcam feature added, but you will gladly use other features that aren't text based.

Please read all other posts in this topic before writing your own post, especially posts on this (second) page.

if webcam support is added, the mirc WILL continue being a text based client, because MOST of people will use it only for text chatting.
it's like a addon for video streaming (that actually is possible with some dlls); but, will create a standard for this, that a addon cannot create. the size added or the speed lost will be insignificant, because it's a module that will be loaded only when needed and IMHO it's a simple code.

That's what I think.
Also from my other post.

-silly shouting and childish comment removed-

Some people, when they don't know anything smart to say they just show everybody how stupid they are.

- But if the video streams go through DCC then people must first be on IRC to initiate the them. It's extremely unlikely that people would bother doing all that if they only intended to use mIRC for the video streaming capability, instead they'd use a program with that explicit purpose. Even if they did use it for that one purpose, so what? How someone else uses the client doesn't affect you.



- Why would it be slower? If the code for video streaming isn't being executed (ie. a video stream isn't occurring) then it's not slowing down anything. Unless you mean the microseconds added to the startup time. As for size, who cares? So the installer becomes an extra 5KB larger, I think people will cope with the 'bloat'.

Good to know, -edit-

Good job, well done.

Thanks. Now please read starbucks_mafia's latest post.

No problem, any time.

Do that then comment.

this post becomes interesting to read ^^

Why did you attack my post out-of-context? My full quote is:
[A really big problem in projects is the desire of "customers" to "gold-plate" .... .
Thus, every feature suggestion would have to be looked at - to see if it really adds to the intent of the product, or if it is just gold-plating.]

I never said that products should never have more features added.

And 90% of the scripting language (no - 99%) is based on text-based features. And those features (non-text) that have been added do, sometimes, enhance the text-based chat. And some other times they are used for other purposes. Fine. Good to see some people looking outside the box.

If you read on, I did highlight how WebCam support could be provided outside of mIRC, but in a fashion that is in concert with mIRC.

But the streamed content should not be sent in a sub-protocol of a sub-protocol. Why not stream the content in its own protocol, in parallel with the IRC chat?

So rather than bloat mIRC with some "gold-plate", why not engineer a way to use two optimised applications in parallel.

If you are going to debate any of the points I raise, then please have the courtesy to debate them in context.

Cheers

DK

General reply: There is discussion, then there is insulting and pointless posting. All people are entitled to their own opinion no matter what their reasons.

nalAAlan: Please do not start arguments or insult others, you've been warned before.

Apologies to those people that truly want to discuss Webcam support, however, this thread is in fast decline and is being filled with useless posts, therefore, it's been locked.

Regards,