Your wrong !!. You should know better, than judge prematurly.
Even I occassionally have to use Word because my university has decided that it is the official word processing software, but I have a comment, inspired by Pigfenders comment.
One of the things that Scrivener is very useful for is writing scientific papers. They have a predefined structure, the IMRAD structure, BUT within each section you have inofficial subsections relating to the subobjectives. Using Collections is a superb way of making sure that each subobjective is handled consistentently throughout the manuscript. So in the Binder I have subsections for each subobjective, making sure I donāt forget anything and donāt get logical gaps.
With Word itās a never-ending-story of jumping back and forth, printing, reading on paper to check it, etc. Not nearly as efficient as Scrivener, in spite of the manuscripts usually being extremely short.
Possibly because I only really use MMD for writing (and RTF for decoration only within scrivener), I find its āSync with External Folderā excellent for working across iOS and OS X, but as a researcher I find iOS utterly restrictive and clunky as hell (perhaps iOS 9 and better keyboard support may change that but unlikely). iOS is still not a real writing platform for me at leastā¦
And Scrivener > Word by a factor of about 9.5 Ć 10āøā¶ ā as others have said if anyone thinks the Binder is the same as the Navigation pane, or the outliners to be equivalent, well, you havenāt really used Scrivener yetā¦
How would one define the threshold for āuseā of scrivener? I ask this not to be a jerk (trust me Iām very good at that) but to make a small pointā¦ I choose to limit my use of scrivener to some of the basic features. Why? To keep my use focused on development of the idea.
Obviously the idea of development is subjective as we likely have different methodologies in use for writing. My methodology only uses the binder, scrivenings view, split editor, a bit of cork-board and some folder in research. Thatās it. I do not use keywords, status, outliner, collections or anything else. Am I using scrivener?
I only mention this as I have been around these parts for quite awhile. Would I qualify to make an assessment disfavor-able of scrivener based on my limited use?
Honest question.
In my scietific work, my iPad canāt replace my Mac for the heavy work, like statistical analysis, manipulation of data, etc, but I do use it for searching and reading literature, using Papers 3.
For serious writing I agree, iOS canāt replace OS X, but itās okay for taking notes, jotting down those ideas that pop up while not in front of my MBP.
Jaysenās question is certainly valid. I have never used Label or Status in the Inspector, colors in the Binder, or Outliner mode, until my latest project. Then I suddenly needed it. The Outliner not for outlining, but to make sure that the different sections were of roughly the same length in number of words, and labels to quickly see the status by using colors, etc.
Am I āreally usingā Scrivener? I donāt think I am āreally usingā any software, if the term implies using a majority of all the possible tricks and quirks. But everything I do, both at work and privately, would be more complicated without the different apps.
(for the record, this is written on my iPad)
There is lots of features in Scrivener that are not in Word, so many and so tailored to specific situations that itās almost impossible to start describing them without, you know, being tempted to just saying ālook at the manualā. In my use, the two features that are deal breakers with any other software I know of are the ability to organize and annotate your research files within your project, and the collection feature. I think that the main general difference between Word and Scrivener is what the OP likes about Word. The syncing across devices gives you a sense that you can jump from one device to another and your experience as user doesnāt change much. But I think this really shows how limited is Word. While iOS is becoming more and more productivity oriented (as the multitasking feature of iOS 9 shows) (which is what I am doing now, writing this on the Notes app while still watching the forum thread on my Mini screen), I doubt iOS will ever be able to handle all the features that are in Scrivener for Mac.
Scrivener is an entire writing system, in my opinion.
The corkboard/card model is what makes it so incredibly powerful. It takes a little while for it all to click in in your understanding, but once it does the difference between it and Word is utterly profound. Word does what it does well (i.e. WYSIWYG formatting, multi-author change tracking etc.), but there is just no way it even begins to compete with Scrivener as an outline-based project tool.
I can appreciate the monumental effort that porting this to iOS would be. Because the Scrivener model relies on documents within documents, getting it all across to an iPad would be daunting. Word is essentially working with one file. Scrivener isnāt.
Itās not a zero-sum game. Thereā are reasons for both applications. As for me, trying to do an outline-based project in Word would make me feel ill. That isnāt Wordās fault. Itās not what it was built for. Equally, if I was working on a document that was being tracked and reviewed by multiple authors, I would never go to Scrivener for that.
Horses for courses.
Suppose it depends on your exact semantic definition of āto useā! 
Indeed we may make the same qualification for many other verbs, like āto liveā; am I really living if I havenāt done all that I could to maximise my life experiences? I do agree that you and I are both āusingā Scrivener, and obviously quite happily. And I still suspect neither of us is āusingā Scrivener in the sense of āusing to the fullā. There are lots of bits of Scrivener I donāt use either, just as iām sure I am not living my life to the full.
I suppose my underlying point (irrespective of semantic (mis)use of āuseā), is that Scrivener is both simple and complex, and it is hard to qualify it until youāve really āusedā it for a while, like a leather glove flexing to the hand that wears it. Word, although it does several complex things well (track changes being its pinnacle in my opinion), is nevertheless a āshallowā tool for writing (and Iād argue is shallow for other things it is supposed to do well like WYSIWYG).
I think thatās my point.
I only use scriv to overcome my own limitations, I tend toward non-linear communication. That is really the only use I have. I actually find scrivener ādifficultā form the prospective that it does SO MUCH STUFF I DONāT WANT that I get in my own way. In that sense, the OP has a valid point. If one only hears about āthis new writing appā without seeing a real need to move away, or even worse, having no need that only scrivener can fill, then there really isnāt an obvious benefit to scriv.
That said, Iām clearly playing the devilās advocate on this one no matter how true the above example is (I keep getting stuck in script writing mode and wish I could completely remove it).
A few years ago, I had a large (book-length) non-fiction project with many tables and graphs, working with an editor who used Wordās Track Changes features extensively. While I used Scrivener for the first few drafts, I ended up doing a lot more in Word than I usually do, and I hated every minute of it.
Now, this was several years ago, so not all of these observations are likely to apply to the most recent version of Word. Still, here were the most important differences I found:
-
Scrivenerās Split/Merge Document commands and dragging and dropping in the Binder are vastly superior to Cut/Paste editing. No paragraphs weirdly out of place or lost altogether because I got the boundaries wrong. Nothing permanently lost to the ether because I forgot what was in the Clipboard.
-
Automatic backups, and therefore automatic versioning.
-
Ability to quickly and easily assemble as much or as little of the project as needed, whether to send to my editor or print for my own use.
-
Ability to keep working notes and drafts together, accessible through a single uniform interface.
-
Simplicity. Briar talked about Scrivener as a box full of professional tools, and Word as a hammer. Instead, I see Word as having dentistās tools, jewelerās tools, woodworking tools, and more besides, all thrown into a pile with little or no organization. Scrivener has tools for writers, neatly organized on a pegboard.
Katherine
I have been using Scrivener since version 1.5. I canāt imagine getting along without it. As a teacher, I have all my class preps, lecture notes, assignmentsājust about everything related to teaching in a scrivener file. I also have a couple of scrivener files containing creative writing. I only use a small fraction of the featuresāthe binder, collections, and maybe the split view once in a while. But, these features are something that are invaluable and that nothing else has or does well. Scrivener is not a word processor and is not meant to function as one. Scrivener is a creation/organization tool. A word processor, in my view, is for the final touches.
MS Word is great if you like to drink Jack Daniels and have an ongoing enrollment in an anger management class. I hope I never have to use MS Word againāeverāin my entire life.
Does Scrivener have spell check and grammar checks?
Hi (and welcome to the forum). The answer is āYes to both.ā (I wonāt add that I think that every software check for English grammar that Iāve ever come across isnāt worth having because of all the false negatives it provides, since it will start an endless debate. So I wonāt add that. 
)
Thanks Hugh. I managed to get a copy heavily discounted for just Ā£13 ($19) - I really like it.
To be fair I think it also depends on the type of project you have on. Scrivener was specifically designed for fiction-writing, and although many people (myself included) have used it for academic writing the big drawback is lack of native integration with a citation manager. All the major ones eg: EndNote, Sente, Zotero all work with Scriv to the extent of allowing you to insert temporary text markers that can be scanned and converted to true citations once you have compiled your project out to rtf (or in Zoteroās case, odf). This creates an extra layer of work when all you want to do, for example, is send a section of work to your supervisor for comment. It is compounded by the fact that Scrivener compile is not really a done deal so there is always a bit of format fiddling after compile - and the fact that Scriv doesnāt believe in styles makes that messy.
Having said that - I worked in Scriv with my PhD thesis up until completion of my first two drafts. The aspects that made it a pleasure to work with: (1) the Binder, synopsis etc - invaluable for the early stages of outlining, moving stuff around, creating new sections etc. (2) Inline annotations - I prefer them to Inspector comments but they do the same job - notes to self that donāt muck up the printed draft. (3) Snapshots - invaluable when you start redrafting because you get to see both versions at the same time. (4) split screen, (5) Research folder - I also set up another folder called Cutting Room Floor for those bits I cut out that I was sure I would need down the track.
Part of the problem with comparison between Scriv and Word is that Word Mac is still not up to speed with Word Windows. eg Navigation pane in Word Mac is just a static list whereas in Windows it is fully drag and drop ie just like Scriv. Split screen is just as easy and useful in Word as in Scriv. The scary things I used to hear about Word not being able to handle long documents are just not true - in Windows - but in Word Mac the integration with Zotero slows down hugely in a long document. Working with MS Word Windows for my final draft I miss Snapshots - but Dropbox retains versions for 30 days and you can pay for 12 months of version retention - so I know all my writes and rewrites are safe. The Research binder in Scriv doesnāt do anything you canāt do just as well in Evernote or OneNote - and because you can address each note by URL you can ākeepā them in your draft if you need (I just keep Evernote open alongside). The time saved by setting up the citations and formatting once for all is immeasurable, and sorry but MS Word makes formatting of front matter a breeze compared to Scriv. I have also set up a non-printed style for editing notes that works the same as inline annotations in Scriv.
Bottom line for me with an academic project was that once the joys of initial outlining/drafting in Scriv (Mac) were completed then the scary/tedious business of endless compiling, scanning temporary references and formatting made return to Word a no-brainer. Lucky for me I had a Win 10 machine with MS Word 2013 (now 2016) because completing the project on Word Mac would be less than happy.
Hope this comparison is helpful - I would happily live in Scriv for a project - fiction or non-fiction - that didnāt involve loads of citations. Things might get easier for academic use of Scriv once it handles styles (v.3?).
Insights from one of our own distinguished erstwhile contributors.
I dumped Word on Mac for LibreOffice (via MMD), and doing a formatting scan takes a few seconds with Bookends, really not painful at all IMO. Iāve done large academic grant applications with ~500 refs and multiple revisions without issue. I hate having to use CWYW when working with one collaborator who refuses to use anything else, and I donāt see any benefit of Endnote[1] CWYW+Word.
The biggest issue for me is collaboration with Word users, where keeping everything in sync through multiple revisions is a drag. That is always the biggest pull away from using Scrivener as a project or collaborative paper progressesā¦
Out of curiosity, is your Mac vs. Win Word comparison as relevant for Word 2016, have you tried using both or were you comparing with Mac Word 2011?
[1] though Iāve hated Endnote in the past, X7 has really seen lots of improvements. Still not the same league as Bookends, but it is genuinely improving.
I experienced this in working on my latest book, co-authored with an academic victim of the Word evil empire. I drafted the chapters I started in Scrivener, exported to .rtf or .doc, and sent them to him. That process was a dream, totally validating the power and utility of Scrivener for me as a book (as distinct from long-form nonfiction) authoring tool.
My coauthor drafted in Word and sent me the .docx files. Scrivener had no problem with those, but we discovered that preserving footnote and other formatting as we edited and swapped files back and forth necessitated the intermediate step of Pages. Most of the second half of the collaboration omitted Scrivener entirely, with him working in Word and me in Pages. This was also happening when Apple was drastically re-jiggering Pages, necessitating the use of older versions for awhileā¦
Anyway, for a few weeks, until we got the system figured out (thanks in part to help on this forum), it was a bit of a train wreck, forcing me to deal with just the kind of formatting issues I thought Iād left behind years ago when I pretty much settled on plain text and Scrivener for my writing tools, depending on the situation.
Using Word/Pages also impeded our writing in other ways beyond the formatting issues. When it came down to restructuring some of the chapters heād drafted, using Pages instead of Scrivener really slowed me down. Because he couldnāt easily re-organize text, his chapters tended to be a lot harder for each of us to work with individually, and because he could only see the resulting reorganized version on each swap, rather than the structure and final text simultaneously, as in Scrivener, the process became far more convoluted than it would have been using Scrivener throughout. Sometimes Iād be moving text between chapters, too, or crafting new chapters from pieces of old ones, and the process of scrolling long documents, flipping back and forth between Pages docs and so on ā when I knew that accomplishing the same thing in Scrivener would be far easier ā was sometimes maddening.
Yes, I tried to get him to buy Scrivener, and I think he might have tried the demo, but he didnāt want to learn a new app, understandably. Being forced to rely at times on a word processor model (Word/Pages) vs. Scrivenerās document organizing approach really reminded me how different the two really are, and how much less efficient (for a project involving massive amounts of research in text, rtf and pdf files, and lots of info-organizing challenges) any word processor or text writing application is from one, like Scrivener, that allows easy manipulation of chunks of info, visualization of organization, and so on.
Had I drafted the whole book in Scrivener, and then sent those chapters to him for editing and then swapping back and forth (whether using Pages or Scrivener), it would have been much easier. Using it for even part of the book literally saved me months, and not using on other parts cost me weeks (at least). Anyone wondering whether Scrivener is worth its price should consider how much time (and sanity) it saves on projects like these, even apart from the insights and creative opportunities gained by being able to easily see and work with structural elements.
Iāve sort of blotted the ugly technical details of just why we couldnāt swap Scrivener and Word files without formatting issues out of my memory, as it happened over a year ago. Iām sure itād be easier next time, and maybe thereās a way to eliminate working in Pages entirely while preserving the picayune formatting requirements imposed by our publisher.
Hmm, at some point, maybe Amber, epederick, me and others whoāve had to deal with these Word/Scrivener issues should work up some kind of primer for the tutorial. It might be a common enough conundrum that itās keeping many potential users from Scrivener. I know thereās been plenty of discussion about it on the forum over the years, like here. Or maybe itās already there; I havenāt looked at the tutorial in ages.
My next book will be a solo project.
I think whatās appealing of the text/markdown/critic markup option is exactly the fact that all these glitches should not happen. But the problem is, almost no one uses that option, so, itās a non starter for collaborative projects
Just trying out Scriv as Word 2016 for Mac is a disaster in terms of ease of use and Word 2011 is now crashing often. However, I must be able to use Endnote and interact with those using Word. I find that Scriv permanently loses Endnote markers from file imported with formatted refs. I also find that I must lookup and reinsert refs in Endnote that were kept in an unformatted state when I export a .docx or .rtf file from Scriv and try to format the Bibliography in Endnote. Pages should be renames to āPageā since you can only see one page at a time (the feature that allowed you to see ā2-upā was removed to dumb down the program for iPad users). In summary, word smithing software is getting harder to use, not easierā¦