Forums Feature Suggestions mIRC is too old?

IRC is dying if mIRC contiune like it does now
You should make it possbile for people to see and talk to each other..
I want to hear other ideas and comments from you all about this :-)

I think that particular dead horse has been kicked around before.

Have you tried msn or some other chat proggie that allows bandwidth sucking video?

Kicked around and kicked around and kicked around... so much that the dead horse is nothing but dust, now.

If you want to see the discussion on that topic, then use the search feature on this forum and search for webcam. Make sure to set the search to 5 years rather than 1 week.

And, btw, IRC is far from dying. The numbers of people on IRC are not going down. Stating something like that without checking if it is true is not a good way to make an argument. If you don't like IRC, use IM. The rest of us will use IRC.

Just because something has been discussed before shouldn't mean the topic is muzzled forever. Continuous discussion leads to change as it shows an interest. Im getting tired of seeing such arguements being used as a valid reason to put something to silence.

It's already established that CAM/MIC support wont have to break the IRC protocol as it wouldnt have to go through the server one bit other then initial CTCPing between 2 people which is barely a burden. The extra bandwidth is a choice by both people.

IRC is, and has been since 1988, the meeting place for the world for the world. IRC predates the internet! As the internet (and more importantly the use of it) evolves, it would be nice to see mIRC do so as well.

IRC is a text based protocol and this shouldnt be changed one bit however this doesn't mean mIRC can't extent on to it without breaking the protocol. Think about it: i doubt DCC was part of the original design. So mIRC has extended in the past with great success. Why not reinvent itself again ?

In the end of the day it's up to Khaled, as are all decissions, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed. "It has been discussed before" should NEVER be a reason to put something down. Untill Khaled explicitly states he'll never ever will do this there's no harm talking about this.

I for one am ALL for CAM/MIC support eventhough i dont share the OP's pessimistic view on IRC.

The internet was around prior to 1988. IRC does not predate it. The internet was originally a military-only internet from somewhere around 1982. It then became open to all and was mostly used by libraries and colleges using Gopher and similar methods to access and share information. At that time, it was basically text-only, other than downloading of images/etc. Later, it became what we see today.

I agree that silencing it is not necessary and wasn't really what I wanted to see happen. However, there are a LOT of long threads about this issue and it would make a LOT more sense to read through those and see what people said before starting a new thread on the issue. There really isn't a need for everyone here to restate what they said numerous times in the past... especially with topics that come up as frequently as this one does. I would much rather see someone who took time to read the older threads (or at least a couple of them) before posting and then have them make a post that references those and discusses what he/she thinks about what was said previously.

I personally don't like having to restate the same thing over and over and over. With threads that are continually started over and over again, I end up feeling like saving my response to a text file and just copy/paste it in everytime I see the thread again. That's not really helpful for the discussion, though. It's really better to reference the older discussions.

As for the topic itself, is it worth putting in a lot of time and effort adding this to the program rather than working on bugs and other, more important, features. I mean, you may like seeing and hearing people, but is it really important? Or are there things that really have more importance and value to the program itself than just a personal preference to see people? And, considering you can script this if you know what you are doing (you may need DLLs to help with some of it), and I believe I've heard of one that worked okay, would it be just as easy to use the script if you want to see/hear people? Obviously, everyone wanting to see/hear people would need to get the script, rather than everyone having it built-in by default. So what? If people really care about it, then taking the time to get the script isn't an issue. If they don't want to take the time to get the script, then they don't really care about it, do they?

Just a couple thoughts on the issue. I've given more comments in previous threads and anyone who cares to find out what they were can look them up. In the end, I could care less if it is added or not. I wouldn't use it, just as I don't use it in IM. I just pointed out a couple things to ask yourself and have stated the other things in the past. I probably won't go any further in this thread as I consider it dead until/if the original poster takes time to look into the older threads and then build off of those discussions rather than just starting a new thread for a new discussion about an old topic.

Actually, the TCP/IP protocols, and thus the military form of the Internet, was developed already in the late 60's, early 70's

Hm. Perhaps 1982 is in my mind because that is when it went public? I don't feel like looking it up right now. In either case, it was around prior to IRC. You can say that IRC predates the modern form of the Internet and that would be accurate.

I wouldn't know, but sounds right indead.

Strictly speaking Internet means any network using the TCP/IP protocol which excisted prior to 1988 but by the time the whole world was linked and browsers and websites were introduced were definatly past 1988, it's definatly debateable .

The only CAM script thats around isnt really worthwhile as its not opensource. I concur the OP should read whats been said already and post a better formulated post on the matter before i am going to spend more time on it disucssing again.

Voice is not possible at the moment.

The need for it is obviously there.

I don't know if this is the one you were referring to..

http://www.bytecam.net/

-genius_at_work

Audio and Webcam
Webcam
Webcam
Videos Options and Internal Web browser for mIRC
Videos Options and Internal Web browser for mIRC
Webcam Support
A new look for mIRC
IRC is going down
Modernizing IRC - webcam, mic, whiteboard
ActiveX controls
Voice and Video support for mIRC
Voice andd Video Integration
Video Integration
Video & Audio Support
Web cam on mIRC
Voice
Voice Chat(w/hands free) and Video Chat
More DCC
DCC Voice
IRC Improvements
Something LONG overdue!!
Khaled, you are killing irc!
Voice Chat
Webcam Help


Mods, can you PLEASE make this a sticky posting somehow? I did a LOT of searching on this one and came up with 25 complete topics on this. I think it's worthwhile this way we can just link to it (this list) from now on


TO all others, this is NOT all there is! PLEASE search before you post it again OR if you have something NEW to add, please do so ON THE THREAD IN QUESTION. Making a new thread DOES NOT get the suggestion done ANY faster..

ONLY KHALED knows what will and wont happen, the rest of us are just visitors

My compliments on your researching skills.

heh can't we all get a long? :-p

Yes thats the one i am referring too :tongue:
It also has all the dialogs built into the dll.
It works like a charm but with it not being opensource and the fact its not easy to handle for new people to mIRC put it down greatly.
There is another one but it only works for a specific brand

Good job digging landonsandor

Well, open source doesn't really matter, does it? If it's built into mIRC, then it's not open source, either.

As for it being difficult when you first try using it, then you can just keep trying it. If people really want the ability for voice/video, then they will learn to use it. If they don't want to put in the effort, then they don't really care about voice/video.

Obviously any mIRC user trusts mIRC to not contain malware. There's no reason to extend that trust to one of the few closed-source mIRC addons available. Maybe some people use it and are able to check that it doesn't do anything sinister, but the vast majority of mIRC users probably don't have the capability to check thoroughly and many wouldn't be willing to take a chance. Nor should they have to.

I'm not sure of your point on your second paragraph. Are you saying that because there's an addon available, no matter how poor or counter-intuitive it is to use, people who want this feature should just use it and not expect mIRC to add this feature? I don't really want to respond to that unless I'm sure that is what you mean, but lets just say that would be a very backwards way of looking at the world in general.

Or take the conversation to an IM client. that does make it easy And despite people arguiing that this is what people should do this i dont think this is something we should want. It means less traffic for IRC servers & less time being spend on mIRC.

To me thats like saying on a foobar forum that someone should use winamp because a feature thats not available in foobar (yet). Instead of agreeing that it be nice to have it built in foobar as well.

I'm all for CAM/MIC support eventhough i personally wouldnt use it much. I see absolutely no harm in it. Its alright to point to present alternatives but saying that it shouldnt be built in because of the alternatives present is a bit crude.

Russel, it was a dizzying process for sure lol That was till I found a better way to find the thread starts lol Im sure we have about 60 different threads at least on the topic. This is now possibly the most debated topic since the multiserver and emoticon/graemlins topics

So how come that alot of people are using MSN/Yahoo chat instead of IRC (mIRC?) :-)

Because they're idiots.

Different people have different needs. That doesn't make them idiots.

I dont think it's cause they're idiots. I think IM programs have been hyped soo much that they takeaway from IRC clients to be perfectly blunt. I think somebody decided that IRC should die and that IM programs are the wave of the future withf eatures IRC never had. What they dont understand is that irc is simplicity - you log in and chat. It's uncomplicated by video, voice, streaming music etc. It's the simplicity of interface that has kept people (among other reasons). IM programs have their purpose, which right now is MAINLY (tho not wholely) video and voice (and respective conferencing). If irc would to have video/voice, IMs would still be around and it would NOT make IMs any less desirable, it would just make mirc (the client in question) more flexible.

I don't think I have seen a IRC or a mIRC commercial advertisement on TV, maybe thats part of what is percieved as a drop in IRC use, I have seen Yahooo advertised and MSN too.

As a side note, usenet is on the decline largly because ISPs are not hosting the news aervers, i asked mine why they dont, "no one asks for it" Of course they dont, they dont know to ask.

At this point, I think everyone is using IM clients because everyone is using IM clients, if you know what I mean. I don't think MSN messenger is anything special, but if I want to talk to my friends online it's all I can use.

coz they are:

1. ignorant
2. lazzy

You all seem to be talking like IMs and IRC are competing against each other. They're separate entities which have some overlap in function. IRC is primarily based around channels, allowing you to either feel more like part of an online community within a channel or otherwise find people who are interested in a similar topic as yourself (ie. mostly strangers). IMs on the other hand are primarily based on making online communication with people you've already met and just want to speak to in a one-to-one conversation. IMs are better at that than IRC and so, with the increasing access of the internet it makes sense that people who's only intention is to talk to their friends will use an IM and not IRC.

Because IMs and IRC have different functions there's absolutely no reason why one would 'die' just because the other is becoming more successful, and I can see no evidence of that being the case. Even if it was, it still wouldn't be a reason in itself to add a feature to mIRC.

Nobody here is trying to market IRC or "beat IMs", it's simply a case of whatever's best at a given task will usually come out on top. Yes, I do think audio and video DCCs should be supported in mIRC, but Instant Messenging's success and any perceived decline in IRC have nothing to do with my reasoning and, IMO, are completely irrelevant to the feature suggestion. So why not talk about the feature itself and stop with the "IRC vs IM" stuff. It's pointless.

it's hard to talk about somethinglike this and NOT do it. You've seen it, Ive seen it, we've all seen it. It's (quite frankly) one of the big reasons people want it, cause IMs have it. The ones who use that logic claim that it makes IM programs better or be replacing IRC clients. You can't forget that too. It's how they (those who tend to suggest the idea or fight for it) tend to get their point across. I agree with you that each has their own purpose and that whichever program offers the functionality of the desired users comes out on top.

Getting back to the original suggestion though, if it's added, it's added. I refer back to my previous post here:

only time will tell and we'll just have to wait

There are good sites/apps that will check things like this. Just as one example, SiteAdvisor from McAfee gives you a browser plugin that tells you about the site. If you look at the site details, you can see information on the downloads they offer and whether or not any contain viruses/adware/spyware/etc. Some are free, other cost money. Most are easy to use.



No, that's not what I meant. People have said in this thread and other threads on the subject that using that addon for audio/video is difficult, so no one wants to use it. I may be harsh in saying this, but if people REALLY want something, they will take the time to learn to do it. If they don't want to learn to do it, then they don't really want it. They may *like* to have it, but they don't really *want* it, or they would learn to use what is available. That may be a harsh statement, but it's true. If you really want something, you'll do what is necessary to have it (within reason).

I did mention that I don't care if it's added or not. I'm not against it being added. I just don't see the need to compete with IM. Just because IM has it doesn't mean that IRC has to have it. And vice versa.

I personally could care less if it's included. I have no need to see a dozen or more people's faces on my screen in order to talk to them, or hear that many voices. And if I really want to just do that with one person at a time, then what's wrong with IM? I use both. IM makes for quick messaging of people I know and I don't have to teach anyone about IRC or explain what server and channel I am in. It's useful for that. And because I use Trillian, I don't have to have multiple IM clients running at the same time to talk to different people. Nice and easy. On the other hand, I have mIRC for talking with a LOT of people at once, playing trivia, playing various other games, writing scripts for people, and having a good time. For me, IM is for chatting only... IRC is where I have fun with people online (other than playing online games, of course). mIRC has more value to me for that reason.

I don't need all those IM things included in mIRC. If enough want them and Khaled agrees, then we'll see them. He knows people want those items and he will decide, in the end, to add them or not to add them. Having dozens of threads really won't change his mind much. It's similar to the whole emoticon thing... it's been beaten to death so many times that he *definitely* knows people want it and if he wants to add it, he will. Rehashing it over and over won't change anything.