This is me to a ‘T’. I’m still on 1.8.6 because it does what I need it to do. Honestly, I’d be perfectly happy to continue using it until I stop my writing career, unless something completely earth-changing is introduced into a future version. With the updates that have been put out so far, though, the earth hasn’t changed for me. None of the new “features” improve on my own process, so they’re really examples of updates for the sake of updating.
I’m sure that when 3.0 comes out, though, I’ll probably be blown away and take another plunge.
Agreed, but I’d add that that fundamental design standard is a reflection of their overall product standard. KB and company have been consistently clear on this, without contradiction :
Yes, there are things I’ve said I want. Those things haven’t been integrated yet, so the statement you quoted is valid in regards to my personal experience. The features that have been added to WinScriv in the versions since the one I use now are not anything that I need. The things that I want aren’t necessary to my workflow, and if Winscriv development stopped right now, I wouldn’t lose any sleep and would happily continue writing with the version I have now. Additionally, since what I want are either going to be incorporated because of increasing parity with MacScriv or will never be added because of Keith’s vision for the program, then there’s not really much that I have to complain about.
Edit: After re-reading your post, I’m curious what you’re referring to when you say that I’ve said myself what features WinScriv is lacking. Are you conflating this issue with my annoyance about Apple products (which I HAVE said do not do what I want them to do)? As far back as I can recall, the things that I’ve asked/wished to be included in Scrivener are things that are already on the docket or never will be (in the case of timelines, which is easily solved by using Aeon).
I guess even after all that has been said, I still don’t know if I should just switch back to Microsoft Word now that I can buy a computer that can actually handle it, bloated in all its fatness and glory.
I probably should spend less time worrying about the software I write with and more time actually writing! But that’s for a discussion another day.
I do think that if Keith is going to advertise a bloat free product, there should be a disclaimer about the complexity of the word ‘bloat’ and what such idea entails to the user, both positively and negatively. The matter is complex, and seems to strike a strong chord with many (as this discussion clearly elucidates).
The Proof of God feature bug was what occurred to me:
Not trying to cross-examine you, btw. I was just struck by the seeming difference between your enthusiasm for new features on that thread and your more zen-like indifference toward new features on this one.
There is a difference between “must have” and “nice to have”…there’s a lot of feature parity with the Mac version I personally will be very happy to start taking advantage of, while still liking Scrivener for Windows for what it is today and it being “good enough.”
Ah, yes, I got a little carried away on that one, didn’t I? Again, though, I was merely waiting for it, not complaining that it wasn’t available. I believe that dual monitor support was something that was eventually supposed to be coming to Scrivener, or maybe it wasn’t something that was ever really intended.
Either way (and especially if the second is true), for a random “bug” to produce an effect unintentionally that gives the user something he or she has been told is coming sometime in the undisclosed future was mind-blowing to me. It was something that I didn’t need, or even expect to see, at the time, but it just happened to fall into my lap. I guess it would be like if people who were waiting patiently for iOS compatibility suddenly were able to sync with their iOS devices while being told they wouldn’t be able to do so for another year.
I try to remain fairly “zen” about most things in regards to Scrivener, since it does as many things perfectly as I can think of. But I also allow myself to be taken over by enthusiasm for the unexpected, as I’m sure will happen when 3.0 is released with things that I never thought of beating me over the head with how useful they are and how wrong I was to never think about wanting them.
Nah, I didn’t think so. It is, as you said, mind-blowing. It actually got me wondering what else might be hidden under the hood … (“Hmm. Maybe if I click on the Inspector button while resting an elbow on the Space key, Snapshot comparison will appear.”)
Hence your handle, eh? That’s fantastic. The Zen of Scrivener (to borrow a phrase) depends, I think, on your workflow. For instance, I’ve read a number of posts by new Scrivener users shrieking with outrage that WinScriv can’t compile to CreateSpace or some such POD outlet. Since I don’t publish to print, I shrug, and think in an alarmingly detached way, “Yeah, I guess I can see why that might be upsetting – to someone else.” On the few times I’ve run into a limitation or had a problem with WinScriv, however, it’s front and center.
Meanwhile, some Scrivener user on the other side of the world may well be peering at his/her screen and thinking, “This long-winded asshole again? ‘WinScriv broke up my imported comments from a Word doc.’ Yawn.”
The main reason to use scrivener over word has nothing to do with bloat - it’s that scrivener is built for long-form writing, with the binder-based structure VC. If you’re worried about things like feature bloat (and text selection in another thread), then it seems like you’re not really focusing on what scrivener offers. I work in Word quite a bit out of necessity on collaborative projects and revisions from editors who use it, but I’d never choose to give up the organizational strengths of scrivener if I didn’t need to.
The main reason to use Scrivener is because it’s built for writing, “authoring”, not for wysiwyg. It’s better than word not only for long-form writing, but also for relatively short texts because of “the binder-based structure” with which you handle the text. Split in smaller groups if you like, restructure, switch to composition mode to focus on the words, etc.
To me, “bloat” is all those extra things you add just to be able to mention them when you do PR for a product. It sounds good, even if it’s totally irrelevant for day-to-day use.
The main reason for writing in Scrivener is that it meets your needs better.
That’s it.
People write long-form with pencil/pen and paper. With typewriter. With WordStar. With WordPerfect. With Word. With TextEdit. With Write. With pretty much ANYTHING. Scrivener is built to be better at writing for a certain way of thinking and organizing.
All of those things people say you can’t do in Word – well, most of them don’t know what they’re talking about. They’ve never taken the time to learn the software. They’ve refused to upgrade. They’ve refused to upgrade their document formats (seriously, had a user who kept complaining about corrupted Word documents in Word 2013. She was still creating documents by copying an old 2002 .doc file and renaming it. Didn’t know about templates. Didn’t know about .DOC versus .DOCX. Didn’t know about compatibility mode.). They’ve refused to consider that their own bad habits are creating the very problems they’re blaming on the software.
I write long technical documents in Notepad++, Word, Scrivener, whatever toolchain I need to get the job done in the least amount of time. (Why Notepad++? Regular expression support. Cannot be beat for bulk editing of data that’s going to get included in a Word table.)
If Scrivener helps you get your writing done better/faster/according to whatever metric is important to you, it’s the best. If it’s not, research and maybe change your workflow, or find another tool.
Thanks Devin for the response. What you say is true.
But, the experience, I suppose I’m gunning for is, not having to change apps, and keep my experience as distraction-free as possible. I guess I like having all my writing in one file format and only having to use one app to write. That’s just the way I am. I suppose I should probably get with the times, but one cannot go against one’s fundamental nature…leaving me still in certain flummox.
Do you really need the level of crap available in other apps? most likely not. In my case (for work stuff) I tell folks “you’re getting this in courier 12 with images sequenced at the end, deal with it”. And they do. I simply don’t DO layout anymore. what the default compile settings give is what folks get with me. My writing is the focus. It’s my focus. The rest of it is just distraction.
Yes I’m privileged to be able to tell the office “live with it”. You may not be able to do that, but I bet if you took a long hard look at all your “suggestions” you may realize that you are focused on things that just don’t help the quality of your output improve*.
[size=80]* I’m not sure who it was this leveled this directly at me (Mr Coffee**, GR, Hugh?) in almost the exact same way I’m leveling it at you. But they were right about me. I’m betting I’m right about you as well.
** This is not a direct quote but it is the BEST advice I’ve ever heard, and it applied to everything. It was from Mr Coffee (Sean Coffee): You want to get better at writing, shut up, put the ass in the chair and write. Ass in chair time is what makes you better. Nothing else. [/size]
Yes. Absolutely correct. “Ass in the chair time” is what counts. Possibly with the addition “…, combined with serious criticism from someone who knows about writing”
So stop fidgeting and start writing! It’s the same with everything we humans do. What makes us good at something is the number of hours spent doing it.
