I need to know whether mIRC can accept emoticons,because when i send message(with some emoticons in it) with other client,mIRC shows the emoticon like empty space.I develop an irc client and need to know this for obvious reason...

if mIRC sees them as an empty space then the emoticons must only be local - which means even a client that can see emoticons will not be able to see them because they are not sent to the server.

Most clients just do a standard check for strings like ":)" or ":(" and then replace them with images on the local side, but send them as plaintext to the server.

mIRC does not support emoticons.

Quote:

mIRC does not support emoticons.

...and hopefully never will.

We already have 'emoticons':

etc
You just have to be creative.

you need nhtmln_2.95.dll

I'd love emoticon support.

':)' and ':D' is just bland.

its still better as plain text than colorfull and intense pic's :P

I have to agree. I would hate to see emoticon's implimented into mIRC.

":)" and ":D" etc. work fine for me.

Agreed! DOWN WITH EMOTICONS!

Personally, I agree that emoticons should not be used in mIRC, however, if they were to be integrated, I would hope that they would either be off by default, or have a setting so that they are turned off (unlike a lot of IM programs where they default to on and there's no option to turn them off).

Agreed. I don't care if they are added as long as I can turn them off and leave them off.

dont flame me, but think there was same discussion on same matter ~half year ago

This same subject seems to rear its ugly little emoticon head a couple of times a year. ugh

I disagree.

In fact the main reason I don't use IRC as much these days is because of the plain and uninteresting interface most of the clients have. I know mIRC can be customised and can even be scripted to support emoticons with the support of DLLs, but that's a lot of work to make a half decent implementation. For example, most of the current ones use HTML and echo line too long errors when more than a few emotions are displayed because they do a simple $replace(string,: $+ $chr(40),<img src="smile.gif" />)

It wouldn't be all that hard to add as far as I know, because the mIRC text windows are already graphical windows, and would shut up the constant requests for emoticons as well as make mIRC much more appealing to those from IM backgrounds.

well maybe i should have wrote "its better to me..."
and it is true that it would not harm implementing this
with choice of enableing/disableing it.

tho many prefer irc to be plain old irc
while new generations will always prefer more graphic usage :P

Quote:

tho many prefer irc to be plain old irc

That would be me. Colors was about as mickey mouse as I would care to see it go,
but if I could disable it like colors then I wouldn't go off the deep-end and shoot up
a McDonald's or anything. As long as it would silence the kids' whining about it.

That's the beauty of it - since emoticons would be implemented on the client side and most likely disabled by default, those that want 'plain old IRC' can still have it.

*nods*
Emoticons support could be switched on/off without affecting anything to the way mIRC is now for those who don't want it. I never understood why people are voicing so heavily against it. Same goes for Voice/Cam support.

Its the edge mIRC needs imo.

Quote:

Same goes for Voice/Cam support. Its the edge mIRC needs imo.

ugh

Ugh is right.

The main reason people disagree with doing these, even if they can be disabled, is because there are other things that the programming time can be spent on that would probably be a better use of time than trying to do all that silly IM stuff. This *isn't* IM and shouldn't be compared to IM.

I don't have any problem with mIRC having 'emoticon' support, but, like others, ONLY if it can easily and permanently be disabled.

Actually, I think that 'icon' support would be more to the point. A simple text to icon replacement in the chosen windows. Anyone familiar with some versions of the Invision forum software would know what I am talking about. There could be a tab in the config window that simply has this:



Obviously there would be more options for each item (wildcard or plain text, in nicknames and/or text, etc). If the 'text' could be anything that the user wanted, then the icons could have other uses as well, such as a crude censor mechanism. Example:



Personally, I don't think I would use the feature if it was available, but I can see how it would be handy.

-genius_at_work

this would definately suck

That's such an idiotic thing to say.
Suck why ? If you don't want to use it don't it's that simple. But I'll say no more about it been discussed TOO much and i personally can't see Khaled do it.

Genius: that's pretty much how i would envision it as well. completely optional and configurable.

Looking back ill take back what i said earlier about not saying anymore about it.



Let me first state that I personally would probably not even use Voice/Cam anymore these days.
Saying IRC and IM's shouldn't be compared seems really really odd to me. Even if they're two different things doesn't argue how voice/cam support wouldn't be beneficial to mIRC.

They're both in essence textual chat protocols. The difference being in a textual sense IRC is far more open as its a public meeting ground. IM software is NOT used as a meeting ground, you add people you know. This is where mIRC could step up without trying to be an IM knock-off. It would actually fill a gap thats not been filled on the net.

For instance i met my girlfriend trough IRC. With her living in England and me originating in Holland we both relied on IRC/Voice/Chat/Phone for a considerable time before i actually moved over to England. Since we both knew the same people on the IRC channel we met on we were both on mIRC constantly talking publicly and trough PM. Alot of times however its nicer to have a face and a voice to someone, especially the girl you love, so we scooted off to Yahoo (It's web cam support is brilliant). Would this have been available on mIRC i personally would never have even downloaded Yahoo Instant Messenger.

I cannot think of any reason why mIRC shouldn't be enriched with these feauture's.
I dare you to come up with "other things that the programming time can be spent on that would probably be a better use of time" that could possibly have the same impact on what mIRC can offer.

Who compared it to IM? Nobody said "Hey, let's add nudges and winks to mIRC" which would be an obvious msn-esque feature (as they're pretty unique). Voice and video functionality are not only available to instant messaging clients, nor are emoticons. Just because these are used in IM clients does not mean they are IM features.

As for programming time - I think fixing bugs is really the best thing Khaled can do with the time, but that's not going to attract new users. You need to add things that users from all walks of 'internet life' will enjoy if you wish to stay on top as the #1 client. You could also use that argument about a lot of features. It's not a personal argument against emotes/voice/video.

I was actually referring back to many other posts on the subjects, where it was constantly compared with IM.

I agree that programming time spent on bugs is much more important than adding emoticons (which have no real value other than aesthetic) or voice/video (which aren't really a text chat feature to begin with). Other features, such as improved scripting functions would be more beneficial in the long run to people.

Whether it's added or not, I've stated that I don't really care. I'd rather see more important things done than those and I really don't believe Khaled will add voice/video to mIRC anyhow, but I don't really care if it's added as long as it's possible to fully disable.

Now, *that* is something I would be interested in seeing. That would be something that would have actual use other than just an aesthetic thing.

Most of the bugs aren't even noticed by the general mirc user. Scripting improvements would be more beneficial for you and me and most of the board users but i reckon not for the majority of mIRC users.
Why are we forcing to stay completely text based while if voice/cam was supported mIRC could still be used as a completely text chat based program ?

More people on IRC makes scripters happy

Only to scripters, since most things can be done with dlls if not with scripting so the end user of a script knows no different.

Adding voice/video would add two extra ways to communicate with people. That will make mIRC's usefulness improve threefold. Adding emoticons would give it a bit of a more modern interface and help it look like it doesn't belong on windows 95.

A very large number of mIRC users use scripts of one form or another. Additional scripting options or improvements allows those who know how to script to make more/better scripts for the average user to use. That can offer more choices and features in the long run than a single additional feature.

All 3 options (video/voice/emoticons) are available through scripts, so it is possible to do everything with currently available scripts. Adding them to mIRC allows them to be more widely used, but it doesn't really add a new feature that isn't already used and available.

As I've said, if it's optional, I don't care about them being added. But, I'd rather see other things added that would be more useful.

Not having a go at you Riamus i know your position on this but a couple of your comments strike me as very odd.


For one webcam/voice support is meant to draw new people to mIRC who have no clue about scripting and secondly i think there are vast numbers of people on mIRC that have NO clue about a scripting feauture being even available.


You can't outweigh built in support for those 3 options against the current scripted alternatives. Purely that noone would have to depend on 3rd party dll's nevermind the rest of the issues. Again pointing out that new users would be able to use it straight away and there would be NO comparability error. The scripted/dll'ed options currently available all fail to deliver big time.

I doubt, excrept an odd couple, really uses the scripted/dll'ed options.

i agree with what Mpdreamz say's , even virc has emo support

Voice/video support being added to mIRC itself would mean a much larger portion of IRC now have support for those, rather than a script. Even the extremely popular scripts like nonamescript have a tiny userbase in comparison to mIRC itself. Scripts would not be very widespread at all which would make finding people with a client that supports voice/video a chore.

Also, if mIRC added it I could see other clients following suit. I've seen discussion forums for other clients and mIRC is very often used as something to aim for. "Add such and such like mIRC", "mIRC has blabla, please add it", etc. And with it being the most popular client, people will want to offer what mIRC has plus more.

As for the script option, I have seen scripts offering emoticon and webcam support but never voice. Got a link for one of those?
Regardless, I doubt very much it's an implementation that would even be in the same league as one built into mIRC itself.

As for the useful features you'd like to see added, what are they? Voice, video and emoticons are all very popular suggestions on this board. In fact I can't think of many that are more popular. When thinking of useful suggestions, you should try to think of what many people would use rather than just yourself. For example, I have no use for UTF8 support but recognise it's a good feature because it makes mIRC a lot more accessible for those that use different languages.

You didn't read all of my first paragraph. I stated that a large percentage of users use some form of script. Having improved scripting features and additional functionality allows those who know scripting to produce more features and content that wouldn't otherwise be available in mIRC. These would all be new content for these users to use. You don't need to know how to script to use a script (very clear based on questions I see from users who use full scripts like Invision or SysReset or UPP).

As for drawing new people in... maybe it will ... to a point. Of course, other features would probably draw even more people in. In reality, video conferencing isn't really as popular as people who want it believe. Yes, people use it, but out of all of the contacts I have on IM clients, a very small percentage use video or voice. The emoticons would probably draw more people just because it "looks" nicer/newer.

If we really want to draw in a LOT of people, mIRC could always go and improve file transferring/serving. I guarantee that if you improve and add onto those features, you'll have a much larger influx of people due to all of the piracy that people do. I'm not saying that's a good move to make, but it is a very obvious way to get more people using it.

And I wasn't trying to say that a scripted method is better than a built-in method and I tried to point that out in me post. I was just saying that it won't really be a new feature; it would really be more like an improved feature. Obviously built-in will work better than scripted.

Anyhow, and I appologize for repeating myself again, but I want to make sure no one misunderstands me... I don't mind them being added if they can be disabled. I'm just pointing out the other side of the issue and stating that other things would really be a better use of Khaled's time -- the scripting was just *one* example.

I don't disagree that it will make it easier for people who use it. Like I said, though... relatively speaking, not that many people use voice/video in IM, so why would a large percentage use it in mIRC? I am sure people would try it for a short time when it's first added and then the majority would no longer use it except rarely. That isn't based on research, but I give that assertion a 90% chance of being correct.

All other clients try to be mIRC. That just goes to show that mIRC is #1 with or without such things. Even when other clients have emoticons, mIRC is still #1. Why is that? If emoticons make so much difference, why is mIRC still #1? Sure, some people leave for other clients, but that is just the fringe and hardly something to be worried over, imo.

I don't use such things (obviously), but in one of the past webcam/voice feature requests, a link was provided to a script that did full duplex voice and video. I don't have it anymore because I don't use it. The link will be in one of those threads, though.

Personally, I don't have much in the way of feature requests. I love mIRC as it is. I don't know what I personally need. However, things like UTF8 are functional (they allow people using other languages to use mIRC). Things like emoticons are purely aethetic (they don't do anything except make it look "fancy" or "cute"). Things like voice/webcam are functional, but I stand by my belief that the percentage of users who would actually use it continually will be so small that it won't really be functional to more than 5-10% of users -- if that. UTF8 is functional for 40%+. Again, these are just best guesses. I'm not going to take the time to do research on the issue.

I could be wrong and I admit that. But I don't think I am. As I mentioned, the percentage who use video/voice in IM is also relatively small. Voice is used more on games than on any other online application. Video is used mainly as a way to record something to distribute, not for "live" displays. That isn't *always* the case, but from all of the contacts I have on 4 IM networks, that's what I have seen. Webcams being used to communicate back and forth was really just a fad 5-10 years ago and is fading out of existence. For awhile, you had computers coming with webcams built in... it's rare to find that these days because it is a dying fad.

Isn't IRC supposed to be text based? Wouldn't a voice feature defeat the purpose of that.

If people want voice support why don't they just use teamspeak, or an IM client or, hell, a phone?

Yes, and that is really what they will use even if mIRC adds the feature. Teamspeak and Ventrillo (or however you spell that) are very popular just because it lets you coordinate attacks and such very quickly and easily without typing while playing games. They aren't really used for general communication because people don't really want to do that. Even on IM, people generally don't want to do voice chat. And with more and more phone companies (at least in the US) allowing unlimited long distance, you might as well use a real phone to talk to someone. Obviously, from other countries, you may want to stick to communicating over the internet, but most people who want to voice chat that way are families that have members located in other countries and not just people who've met online.

Well, I'd be in favour of this if Khaled did two releases, one with bandwidth draining features and one without.

Therefore both sides are happy.

But that would be the only condition, else, I'm against it.

If you don't use video chat or voice chat they don't use any bandwidth at all. There'd be no need for two versions.

You keep talking about what "most people" do and want. How do you know? You say that the people who want voice chat only want it to talk to people who they could call on the phone, but if anything you're contradicting yourself there. If they could do that then they probably do do that and actually want voice chat for the people that it isn't practical to phone.

It could be that mIRC is #1 because mIRC is #1, if that makes sense. Even if other clients were lightyears ahead of mIRC now, it takes a lot to make people switch. Especially if they chose mIRC through word of mouth. Things that come recommended always seem a bit better. I'm not suggesting that mIRC doesn't deserve the #1 spot, but rather even if it didn't it would take a while to make people switch to another client. It wouldn't happen overnight.

I disagree. Emoticons are mainly aesthetic, I'll give you that one, but they're also useful for showing the context you want your message to be taken in. Since there are lots of people on lots of different wavelengths on message boards and chat rooms, a joke may not always be taken as a joke, for example, but with a laughing or smiling icon it hints that you're not being serious. The same could be used to show anger, sadness, confusion, etc.

I was always under the impression that a large portion of IRC used English. When I say large, I mean more in the region of 70-80%, not a mere 60%. I could be wrong though.

Whereas you say it's fading out of existence, I think it's as popular as ever. I see tons of people using or discussing webcam every day. I guess it depends on the sort of communities you use, but I see them widely used in social networking ones (like myspace, etc).

I believe it's only used a little in IM applications because they're mainly used to talk to people you already know. I don't feel a pressing need to see my friend's face when I've seen it a bajillion times before. Whereas, on a profile site I use about 90% of the people in the chat rooms use their webcams. It's nice to hear/see the people you're talking to. It makes it feel like you know them more.

As far as voice is concerned, you only have to look at Skype's popularity to see it's not an uncommonly used feature.

I've been using IRC since 2000. The reason I'm still using it is because it really hasn't changed very much. Its Internet Chat Relay keyword is "Chat" Its not Internet Voice Relay or Internet Video Relay. To me IRC is professional unlike all the instant messaging software you find today. If you don't like the way mIRC or IRC is then don't use it. Use the other instant messaging clients that already have all those features your looking for... stop trying to turn IRC into AOL...

How is voice or video chat "unprofessional"? If anything voice-chat would be considered a professional feature since it'd be the internet equivalent of a conference call. More to the point though, what does it matter to you if other people use mIRC for non-text chat? The word "chat" isn't specific to text, it's original meaning would of course be to chat as in a conversation - one using voices no less! Even if it were, it's also not called Internet Relay File Transfer, yet DCC SEND is still included because it's useful for sending the odd file to someone you're chatting with and is a worthy addition used by many IRCers (that's chatting IRC'ers, not filesharing IRC'ers) - "useful" being the operative word.

Remember video and voice chat would not affect you in the slightest if you didn't choose to make use of it, it'd naturally be implemented as DCC sub-protocols so all you'd have to do is set mIRC to ignore those requests and it'd be as if it were never there.

You pretty much covered what I wanted to say, but I'd also like to add this..

IRC's popularity has declined a hell of a lot recently and as such, so has mIRC's and of course scripting websites. If new and innovative features aren't added to IRC itself, or the clients I think the popularity is going to continue to decline until it's not worth using. This forum for instance used to get a post every minute or so. Now it can go quiet for hours.

It does effect us. Its more bulk thats added to mIRC. The more bulk the slower mIRC runs and the more memory it takes. You can use the say that computers are getting faster but not everyone has a faster computer. Emotion support is unprofessional. Features like this have been requested for years but never get added. Its time to stop complaining about them not being added. IRC servers don't restrict there clients to mIRC. If you want that features code your own client or request them for another client that likes adding those kinds features. No ones holding a gun to your head telling you to use mIRC.

- If by bulk you mean maybe an extra 50-100kb on the installer size then yes, more bulk, but frankly if that much bothers you then you should also be crying foul about a million other things in mIRC that "add bulk" too. As far as speed goes, that's patently false. There would be no slowdown whatsoever for these features if you didn't use them.

Nobody's complaining about these features not being added, I'm simply disputing the illogical reasons for not adding them. Whether they get added or not doesn't concern me. As always it comes down to Khaled's choice, that's fine. I'm just sick of people using fallacies such as the two noted above as reasons for why they shouldn't be allowed in mIRC.

You still have yet to show anyone why these features are NEEDED in mIRC.. I still don't see why you can't use skype, googletalk, or teamspeak... Also I doubt it would be 100kb try > 2mb.

They're not needed. They're useful.


- Well neither of us can be sure. It's pure speculation for anyone to judge that, so there's no point using it as an argument for or against the features.

He said he's not fussed if they're added or not, he just wants people to use half-decent arguments against them if they're going to try and fight the suggestion.

As for your argument, that could be said about 90% of mIRC's features.

Why add /splay when you can use winamp or windows media player?
Why add DCC send support when you can use a filesharing application or IM?
Why add the ability to chat at all when there are other applications that can be used for chatting?
Why add picture windows when you can use paint?
Why add a scripting language? One isn't NEEDED.
Why add a toolbar? One isn't NEEDED.

I could go on, but I think I got my point across.

Well how about a feature that cooks my dinner. I think that would be a good feature can I have that added? Your right theres alot of bs features in mIRC but why add more?

The difference between the suggested features and yours is that it's not useful (or possible) to have that built into mIRC.

Because those 'bs features' are popular and widely used. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant really, as no doubt if any of the 3 features were added there would be ways to turn them off so you can just forget they even exist.

As for slowing down mIRC, a computer can process thousands of instructions a second. A simple if (webcam_enabled) { /* do webcam processing here */ } in a couple of places is going to make about a 100th of a second difference in speed if you have it turned off.

If you read what I've posted, I've said that these are educated guesses based on what I have seen and that I will not go out and research it. If you want to know why I say what I say, then read what I wrote. I already explained the reasoning behind it.

As for talking on the phone, you didn't read it completely or else misunderstood it. I said that other than games, most people who use voice chat are families with members in other countries, where calling on the phone is expensive. Therefore, they would want to use voice chat to avoid the cost. This would also be true for friends who are in other countries (Iraq, for example). If you *can* call and it's free, then you would likely use the phone instead of voice chat. I didn't say otherwise.

See thats where I got ya. mIRC cooking my dinner to me would be useful... Just like you say voice chat and webcam is useful to you. In my opinion those features are garbage.

Those features are widely used in instant messaging clients. Like i said before why not just USE the clients that HAVE those features. Everything doesn't need to be able to do EVERYTHING <-- thats what I'm trying to say...

- No. Having your computer cook your dinner maybe be useful. There's no reason why mIRC doing it would be useful though. Voice and video chat OTOH are useful within mIRC because text-chat is often a natural pre-cursor to them in many situations.

The people I have on instant messaging programs are people I already know. I don't feel the need or want to see/talk to them when I'm online because I mainly use the internet for meeting new people. I talk to my friends on the phone mostly.

IRC can be used as a way of speaking to people you don't know.

My reference to it being #1 isn't the number of users. If the other main clients look at mIRC to see what to add, then those clients are proving mIRC's #1... not by number of users, but simply by trying to live up to it. You don't try to be the same as something that's not any good.



I'm unsure of how a text smile isn't good enough to show that same thing. Most people using the internet (other than brand new users) understand at least the basic text smileys. As I said earlier, I do like the idea of being able to replace any text with any image through scripting. That would be useful rather than just aesthetic and could make for some very interesting scripts. It would also allow for emoticons to exist. That is a way to add functionality to the emoticon idea so that it's worth doing for reasons that are not aesthetic.



A large number to *use* English because that's the easiest method up until now. Now that we have UTF8, more and more are using that so they can talk in their own languages. Maybe I am wrong at the percent as well, but I still think that we have at least about 50% of users who are not from the United States or England or other countries that have English as a primary language. Of course, I guess that many languages do work with English characters, so that you don't need UTF8, so maybe it is a lower percent that actually use it. Still, I do believe it's a very important feature to a very large number of people.



Well, that isn't really an instant communication site... it is closer to a forum/e-mail communication site. Still, I admit that I may be wrong about the number using webcams for actual live video communication. The point I was making is that other similar instant communication software (such as IM) that has the ability to use video/voice don't have a large percentage of people actually using it.

Anyhow, without real researched data, we don't really know how popular it will be 6 months or a year after it was made available. I still think the percentage of mIRC users who use it regularly after 6 months to a year will be under 5%. I can't prove that and won't put in the time and effort to research it to find out who is right. I'm just stating my thoughts on what I feel will happen.

IRC will get used the same way once everyone turns it into a instant messaging wanna be client. But you do have a point hixxy. I just don't like to see IRC turned into a instant messaging wanna be type thing... I just think theres tons of different features an things in the IRC community that should get worked on before it starts messing around with voice and video crap. I don't really think it makes IRC better nor really worse..

Not trying to debate these with you, but I'd like to comment on one if you don't mind.



IRC was out long before other online instant chat methods. mIRC is meant for IRC, so not having chat wouldn't make sense.

The rest are valid questions, but I don't want to start debating all of those in this thread.

Maybe it's the channels I am often in, but most people I meet on IRC are more interested in privacy than in displaying their face for unknown people to see. Displaying your face to friends is one thing... to strangers is less desirable for many people. The whole a/s/l thing was popular for quite awhile once you started seeing AOL and IM stuff going around. It isn't anymore because people don't want to share that information. Privacy is becoming more and more of an issue with people (at least from my experience). That said, I don't frequent the #chat or #cafe channels or similar ones that are meant for trying to meet people. Of course, what percentage of IRC users do? (That's rhetorical as I'm sure no one has that data, but I'm sure it's a low number).

If you want to be the #1 client but are not currently, then you will add features that are popular even if you think they are crap. Some mIRC features are popular, but they may not be considered good by authors of other clients that add those features to their own.



A text smile isn't good enough because there are only so many smileys that actually make sense.

I fail to see how :S represents confusion, :@ represents anger and :-* represents whispering. Unless you start using text-based smileys like : laugh : and : blush : which make little sense to use outside of a smiley-based environment, there's only so many smileys you can use that aren't nonsensical.



As far as I know it's also the most international language. That would explain its popularity on the internet as well as speech.



Myspace was a bad example, but many social networking sites have instant chat applets as well as forums/guestbooks/etc.



It would still be nothing like an instant messenger due to the fact you don't have to add people to your contact list/address book to speak to them, its main focus would not be one on one conversations, you do not have to login with a username/email address and password, and a myriad of other features available to mostly instant messaging clients. Saying it's going to be an IM wannabe is jumping the gun a little.



You have a point. That was a bad argument.



Those that value their privacy wouldn't be forced to use the voice/video features nor would they be forced to share any information they'd rather keep private. The point is these features would be there for those that would use them, but wouldn't have to be used if people didn't wish to use them.

I don't tend to ask people their ASL or if they want to go on webcam on IRC, so I can't really say whether it seems like the majority value their privacy, but I think that's largely based on an assumption and holds no weight in a debate. For one thing, if a lot of the people on the network(s) you frequent value privacy, then perhaps it's known for those reasons. Maybe it's known as a network where the people tend to be non-intrusive, which would result in more and more people that value their privacy joining.

As it happens, I find that filesharing channels are the most popular, followed by ones that talk about a popular subject such as music/tv, followed by general chat, followed by programming, and finally scripting. Then you get others that aren't really worth a mention. Obviously I've missed ones out in between, but I'm just giving a rough idea of the popularity of general chat vs. other subjects.

All your points are valid even if they don't change my view. But, I'll comment on this last part.



Filesharing being the most popular, you can wipe out those from the list using video/voice. Music/TV mostly wouldn't either unless the channel is really a chat channel about Music/TV (which would fall lower on the scale than a general chat) or if a "star" is there. General chat could depending on the people. I still believe firmly that it's not a big percentage even within this bracket, though it would be the biggest percentage bracket of all of them. Programming and scripting generally won't use it either. Perhaps voice if it's general help. If it's actual scripting, writing it down so it can be copy/pasted is easier and works better, so those situations wouldn't use it. So really, from that list (It probably is missing things, but I'm not sure what right now), the only real place you'd find use of those features is general chat, which as you pointed out is not at the top of the list of popular channels.

And, yes, I know people frequent multiple channels of different types.

Either way, I doubt either of us will convince the other about the number of people we believe will use the feature. I don't mind it being added if it's optional, so we really don't need to debate it since we both agree that it's fine to add as long as it's optional. (Just trying to avoid an endless debate when we both agree about the main part-- being added or not)

Just to let you know, mIRC does accept emoticons, i use a script that has them on.

its about a buildin option , options that are build in are better than added scripts.

Yes, scripts allow for emoticons and video and voice. We know that. mIRC by itself does not support those, however. Built in will always be better than scripted if you're going to use it.