Confused - Is There A Beta Version of Scrivener Windows 3?

Scrivener Scrivener for Windows
1

I am currently using the trial version of Scrivener 1.9, but have read in several other places here on the forums about the existence and availability for download of a Windows Beta 3 version of Scrivener.

However, I cannot find a Beta 3 version anywhere.

Does it exist, and if so, where is it?

I would like to try this out.

I find the lack of clarity about this confusing and unnecessary - it does not impress me as a potential buyer.

2

There is a beta, and you can find it in the first post of this thread.

3

Google “Scrivener 3 windows download” (for instance) and choose the link that goes to Literature & Latte.

4

Thanks, drmajorbob,
I actually found the download link shortly after I posted the message - I was fooled by the fact that people are talking about version 3 for Windows, but the release is actually 2.9.

5

Thanks very much for your reply and the link, kalidasa.

6

So is it a lie? I hope that if there was a version 3, well.

7

It isn’t 2.9 or any version of 2.

That’s just the number they use so they can start the full release as 3.0.

8

No, there is no lie. You’ve found your way to the Scrivener for Windows main board to get to this board. If you glanced down you would see the Beta board with everything you need to know about the beta program, including download links. It’s been there since 2017.

If you read it you will see L&L are close to release of the full version. Meanwhile the RC21 beta works just like a full release program. We just haven’t been asked to pay yet (those of us who purchased before the free cutoff of Nov 2017).

And as above, the 2.9 identifier is just so they tick over to 3.0 on the full release.

9

I understand what you are saying, but the name (version number it has been given) is 2.9xxxxx, so that is what it is called.

This actually confused me for a while because I was looking for Beta 3, but there is no Beta 3 file - at least none that I can see or could find - and that was a waste of my time.

Any other beta software that I have tested/tried to find , has been clearly identified by the name/title/number it has been given.

10

We call it “the beta” or RC21. I don’t recall anyone saying “2.9” when they mean the beta.

It may be slightly hard to find, but if you do find it, I’m pretty sure you’d only find it in posts that say Scrivener 3 beta. It’s not hidden.

[url]Scrivener 3.0 Beta - Release Candidate 10 (Download Links & Change List)]

11

Hi,
Alright, let me clarify a few things, because you are getting confused and are confusing the issue (no offence, but that is the case).

  1. No, I am saying the opposite of what you say I am saying, viz., I am not saying that people are saying it is 2.9 - I am saying that people are calling the 2.9 file “Beta 3”.

  2. Somehow you have included in your quote of what I said (in your last couple of messages), some comments from other users - just wanted to be clear about what I am saying, and separate it from the fellow who is calling some of this a “lie”.- I did not even quote that in any of my posts.

  3. I just had a look at the first page of the thread from which I downloaded the 'Beta 3 version, and here is what the part relevant to the download says:

"Current: Beta - Release Candidate 21, version 2.9.9.21

Latest Beta - Release Candidate 21 Download Link

2.9.9.21 (64-bit) | 2.9.9.21 (32-bit)"

Not a word there about Beta 3.

The last page of the thread says,

“RC 21, version 2.9.9.21, has been posted.”

I have seen the candidate Windows version referred to as Beta 3 in quite a few places on this forum, and that is what I am saying is confusing.

12

Fair enough. If you’re new to Scrivener, you wouldn’t know there is no version 2 for Windows and never was. Scrivener 2 for Mac is several years old, but they’re skipping version 2 on Windows.

That said, if there ever WERE a version 2 and they’re working on 3, there’d be no version 2 beta.

13

The title of the thread from which you downloaded the beta is
Scrivener 3.0 Beta - Release Candidate 21 (Almost there!)

Katherine

14

True. OP says he/she saw the download link, and this is the top of the post where it is:

[attachment=0]beta.jpg[/attachment]

15

Yes, Katherine, you prove my point.

Labelling the thread ‘Beta 3.0’ is the confusing/misleading part because the filename in the first lines in that first post in the thread (just underneath the title you showed), and also the filename in the last post in the thread, have the filename as ‘2.9’.xx.x.x.x, i.e. not ‘3.0’

This is the whole point I am making - it is confusing and had me searching hither and yon for a link or file with the title ‘3.0’.

This is not difficult to understand, and I think it is pointless to try to defend or justify a sloppy and confusing and misleading naming convention.

I have used the beta versions of several pieces of software over the years and all of them have made the name of the beta file consonant with the title given to the upcoming version.

16

Nothing sloppy or confusing. The same naming convention has been used on multiple beta programs I’ve been in.

Seems the vast majority of us had no issue whatsoever finding, or understanding the naming convention.

17

FWIW, the beta has been running for more than three years and this is the first thread of this kind that I recall.

Katherine

18

And I have had the opposite experience with beta programmes in various different types/fields of software development (not saying they are all like that, though).

And given what I have mentioned, yes, sloppy and confusing.

19

I used WordStar version 0.9 (i.e. the pre-release beta of 1.0) to write my doctoral thesis, back in ye olde CP/M days.

But perhaps that naming convention has gone the way of the 8" floppy disks I had to use.

20

The alternative was to think it’s a beta for version 2, which never existed.

If it did exist, surely there wouldn’t be betas at the same time for version 2 and version 3.

The post title in HUGE letters says beta 3.0, which says to me at minimum, “a beta for 3 exists”.

I moderate a group with almost 14,000 users and another with 1,300 or so, and no one else has said anything about this being confusing.