Any need to update Scrivener v1.9.9 to v1.9.12 before using Scrivener v3?

As are many, I am anxiously awaiting the release of Scrivener 3 for Windows.

I am sort of in a holding pattern, when it comes to using Scrivener. I have converted all my current projects, which were created using Scrivrner 1.9.x, by opening them in Scrivener Betas, starting around Beta 17 or 18. Since then, I have not used v1.9.9 at all, and have used only v3 Betas for small amounts of writing and revising. My v3 (2.9.x) folders and files are completely separate from my v1.9.x files.

As I understand it, the difference between Scriv 1.9.9 and Scriv 1.9.12 has to do with the change in the third parties that provide licensing validation. My v1.9.x is purchased and licensed; being a public Beta, of course, my v2.9.x is not licensed.

So, a few questions:

(1) Will I be able to install a purchased (upgraded) v3, either on top of or alongside of, v1.9.9, which will not have been authenticated by the new licensing partner?

(2) Or, will I have to install v1.9.12, launch it, and go through an online validation process, so as to authenticate my v1.9.x license?

(3) If yes to (2), will I have to open and close each project in v1.9.12, or is it enough just to open v1.9.12 once?

(4) In any case, whether due to licensing issues, or perhaps due to changes in database structure or format from Beta to Beta, are there any reasons that I should I abandon my Beta-converted v3 projects, and open and re-convert them from v1.9.x with Scrivener 3 when it is released?

Re (4): I haven’t done a huge amount of writing and revising in v2.9.x. So, it wouldn’t kill me to have to start over (re-convert) from v1.9.x, but I really hope I don’t have to.

Thanks for any guidance,


You should not need to update 1.9 before using 3.0 when it releases.

Thanks twice, Devin. One, for answering the question about updating from v1.9. Two, for demonstrating an economy of words.

From your succinct response, I realize that I could have, and should have, posed my question in about 5% of the words that I used. Geesz.

Well, which one is better depends on whether you’re being paid by the piece or by the word. Pay-by-word is one reason Dickens’ works are so prolix, I believe.

Alexandre Dumas was reputedly paid by the line, leading to a lot of dialogue like

“Really?” d’Artagnan asked.

“Yes,” Aramis said.

Orthos agreed. “Absolutely.”

His publisher ultimately put their foot down and insisted that lines had to go at least halfway across the column to count.


Well, this is good news then, David and Katherine. What is L&L’s current rate of pay for forum commentary?