Forums Feature Suggestions Modernizing IRC - webcam, mic, whiteboard

Now I'm sure this has been beaten to death a million times already, but I think that mIRC needs webcam, voice chat, and whiteboard built in without the need for external scripts.
I don't even own a webcam or mic but I know that the standard tools that people will communicate with throughout the 21st century will not be text only. IRC needs to catch up, and you're the ones in the position to make it happen. If mIRC added it then other IRC clients would have to follow suit.
Sooo.. unless the big boys paid you not to do it, why wasn't this done ages ago?

Yes. If you use the Search feature, you'll find a number of posts about said features, and the opinions of those who support it, and those who oppose it

Regards,

Sooo.. unless the big boys paid you not to do it, why wasn't this done ages ago?

Please read the irc RFC. That will explain it all.

I did actually use search but I didn't think to check the date range, my bad.
also I hereby wind my neck in on the changing IRC protocol, it should be additions to CTCP/DCC instead. The rest of what I said still stands.

I totally agree with you. We are now in 2005 and everything need improve. Your car, your house, your computer, your life, your Windows/Linux, your browser, your country.
When you have a program that millions of ppl use you need to improve too.
There is no reasons to not add this features to mIRC. Who likes it, use it. Who doesnt like it, ignore it. Just like a lot of ppl do with SSL. mIRC have SSL support and who like use it, who doesnt like it, ignore it.
Now lets wait for Khaled and see..

Define "improve" and you may end up with a decent argument that could convince people. Do I want to improve my car so that it can be a boat as well? Do I want to improve my house so it can be a shop as well?

At the moment, I don't want to "improve" the chat client so that it can be a self-serving multi-media centre (I have other software that can assist that!).

Of course, and has been said many times before, the final decision of what functions are (and are not) included rests with Khaled!

Cheers,

DK

If i remember right someone was working on a version 3 of IRC protocol. Personaly, I like the text based style. I like the fact that people dont really know about IRC as well. Its a true escape from the world sometimes. You can actually make a whiteboard in mIRC, my friend had a working one somewhere, it went between groups you could join a channel and open it with everyone who was in the channel and who had the script it was pretty neat. Anyway, I personaly think IRC is fine the way it is, with the text based life. MSN, Yahoo!, AIM, ICQ, are all getting really bloated up with features no one cares about. Kind of another reason to like google talk more. (atleast the beta version of google talk.) Some people i'm sure would love to see IRC jump into new levels and to new areas, but there are things like teamspeak already out there. I guess maybe i'm kind of conservitive in that IRC sense, but i really like the plain text based part of it. I hope mIRC doesnt go all bloaty like IceChat, and some of the other clients out there.


By the way it was Andrew Church, he created an IRCd of some sort, http://achurch.org/irc3/ his protocol layout there. Its very old and non-updated.

Hmm, for one thing he removed Unicode support from his standards, citing problems? At any rate, I wouldn't trust this man to define the future of IRC on his own.

I'm sure any sufficiently large people who know how to develop IRC clients would be able to code an extension to IRC and document it though, and support for things like web cams and whiteboards could already be implemented through things like CTCP/DCC requests. In fact, one might argue that mIRC once extended the protocol with "mIRC colors".

In the end, though, it's just a matter of doing it and seeing if it catches on.

I'm also perfectly happy with how mIRC/IRC is right now and don't see the need to make it bloated with a lot of miscellaneous features. If the support is already there through scripts and DLLs for those who really want to use them, then I don't see the need to add it to mIRC itself. But, as said, it's all up to Khaled...

... so why must we keep spinning this topic around and around on here? One thread about these things would be plenty to get all the opinions out there... yet we have probably dozens requesting some, or all, of these features (and requesting that they don't get put into mIRC).

Quote:

I like the fact that people dont really know about IRC
as well. Its a true escape from the world sometimes.

I couldn't have said it better. I would like to see IRC be the
one thing that remains what it was intended to be, text
chat. As far as SSL goes, if video and voice chat options
were added as plugins like SSL was, well then that wouldn't
be so bad.

In 1990, you only saw movies in Cinema. In 2005, in TV, Cinema, DVD, VCD. Why this? Because you have more options.



Sure, you dont want. But a lot of ppl like webcam, sounds, etc, so why dont give him some options?
Somebody uses mIRC for 7 years and want to use webcam. So you will tell him to use MSN? Why not mIRC? Your IRClife will change if Khaled add webcam? Ignore it and dont use.

I think everybody would be very happy to see a program that wanna to improve and give more feature options and not saying: "use this other program.."

Debug,

Thanks for the comments. I still think we are talking chalk and cheese here.

Are you suggesting the Cinemas should use DVD's because it will improve the cinema experience? That is the type of analogy that you are applying to mIRC.

Will my IRClife change if webcam etc support is added to mIRC? I really don't know - my crystal ball has flat batteries. but I do know that I will have a larger application that will hinder me from doing other things at the same time (due to memory bloat, possible driver conflicts, etc).
I dread that I will have to fend off requests from "kiddies" who will pester ppl for their picture because they know that the application comes with built in support (remember - we are talking about IRC here - remember the text chat protocol!)
I dread that the implementation of added complexity will introduce more avenues of attack.

You may argue that added webcam support is relatively easy (link to existing API etc etc etc). If this is the case, why not write a DLL that you can distribute to mIRC users who want this? This way, an efficient support application can be provided without bloating mIRC.

My basic argument is that everybody using mIRC (including those on WINE etc) have an operating system that is capable (with the right drivers/applications) of supporting the tools that re asked for here. Why build these applications on top of another application which was designed for an entirely different purpose?

I have never disagreed with the premise that some people on computers would like to use webcams, whiteboards, sounds etc etc. They already have the option to do so. And they can do so at the same time they are using mIRC. Windows allows users to have multiple applications open at the one time.

Oh, I know this may be a little before your time, but in 1990 I could already watch movies in places other than the Cinema. I could certainly watch them on TV, and I could watch them on "video" - I think the Beta option had actually died out by that stage. I remember the days when we used to get the projector out to watch movies at places other than the cinema. Do I have more options now to watch movies? No, I just have more options in the formats I can use to view it.

Cheers,

DK

I think a major difference here, between instant messengers that have such support and irc client (fex mirc) that do not, is both the protocol design and the intended use. To be very brief...

IM clients are designed for direct one on one conversations/voicechats/webcams and so on. Yes they have grown to allow things like conferences and group chats, but such things are created by inviting only and are not publically open. IM clients are also designed to be graphically visual rather than just text based, this is part of the protocol and clients initial design and intended use.

IRC however is designed to be a text based CHAT ROOM environment, while both clients and servers have grown to support restrictions (such as with services or channel modes like +i), the protocol design is for an open communications environment and is by default completely unrestricted.

I could go into much more detail about the designs, intentions and capabilities, but there is probably no point. Because of these simple differences i think webcams and such belong in IM clients, and not chat room environments such as irc, web based chat, or forums. Yes, there are a few irc-style protocols and clients that have such features, but they are not very popular in comparison... and i can't think of any web based chat rooms (custom or w/ irc backbone) that have webcam and voicechat support.

Dispite all of the above, i also think that webcam/voicechat support would lead almost directly into some sort of built in media player. Which is an area most im client wont even venture, and something i believe would ruin mirc.

Anyhow, just my opinion.

Movies could be watched on TV for decades... pretty much all the way back to when TV was invented. Movies could be watched on VHS for a long time (I can't remember when we first used VHS, but it was in the 80s). Movies could be watched on things like 8mm at home long before that. You could definitely watch movies in places other than the theatre (cinema) prior to 1990.

DVD? Ok, so it is a new format. Not a new place to watch a movie. VCD? That's just a computer video format, basically. No different from saying you can watch AVI or MPG. Again, it's just a format and not a new place to watch a movie.

There are DLLs that allow use of webcam within mIRC. Use them rather than requesting that mIRC become bloated with a lot of stuff that isn't really all that useful. People who want it can use a DLL for it very easily. Sure, using it means that others need the DLL. But, if people REALLY want to use it, they can get the DLL for it. If they're too lazy to do so, they can't complain about not having webcam support.

As for saying "go use IM"... why not? Most people who use mIRC have IM running at the same time anyhow.


Darwin, I'd not say that DVD format in a theatre (cinema) would improve the experience. I prefer the reel format. Seeing the flickers and "artifacts" in the movie are part of the experience, imo. If I want to watch a DVD, I'll do so at home.

IMO modernizing doesn't necessarily mean improving and
improving doesn't mean cramming everything you want
to do into one application. If this stuff is added, why stop
there? Khaled could also add in a browser, email client, a
full feature media player, video/audio file editing .. the
possibilities are endless really. Then we would have a
buggy, bloated, "modernized" and "improved" application
that we can use for whatever we need to do. No thanks.

Agreed.

There must be a line where mIRC will not cross.

Webcam would be someting you send out to a couple a persons and they would be the only one watching it and most probably talk about how good you look in PM. Therefor i dont see webcams degrading the IRC experience at people will still talk in the room(s). I get a feeling some people have this horrible view on webcam because they think it would be bound to the room and everyone would see everyone it wich case i agree on it being bloaty and unworkable but that said thats not what most people mean when they request for it. Also i like to add that i see all threads being closed when it gets to this subject thats probably why there are so many and honoustly i dont get why they would be closed as forums are made to discuss however pointless and endless it may be.

Mirc Limits need to be pushed/broadened but instead of feautures like media playing editing and the likes (which in my view the DLL support is for) id rather have it made speed up more. Something like WhileFIX.dll should be native, native queueing of triggers, i dont know if it was this thread but as FiberOptics mentioned COM events etc etc. Stuff like that that would Truely help us scripters create and enjoy.

The reason i think webcam should be native and not a dll however is for webcam to be succesful people must not need to load a script.

I don't see a problem with making people load a script for a DLL in order to use some specific thing like webcam. If they really want it, they'll load it.

I'm not sure that I agree that most people who are against it are because they thing "everyone" will see it. I think most of us understand that it would be more of a "one to one" type thing, where you can let certain people see it. Doesn't change my opinion of it, though.

Most threads are closed because it seems they are about to, or already have, gone into a game of post-tennis, usually with flames. The same points get reiterated over and over and over again, and it's so tedious to wake up and find (22) next to a thread with people being arrogant to one another when neither side is going to ever agree.

There are people that want webcam support, people that don't, people that don't care. The most sensible thing that's been said is, it's whether Khaled wants it in mIRC in the end and I'm sure he's aware it's something which has been requested.

Regards,