Just curious, I have been waiting for the new Windows version upgrade but I do not see it any nearer…
It’s in very early beta. It will be some time yet.
This is just a guess since I’m not on the development team. I’m figuring the release will be between May-Aug of this year. Better idea after April beta release. There are many little bugs that need to be taken out and a few major features to be completed. Software development is complicated. 
If I remember rightly, the Mac v. 3 (private) beta testing began in January or February last year, when it was already feature complete; it was finally launched commercially in November or December. So, given the current state of the Windows beta, with Scrivenings editing, compiling, web-page display and other crucial elements not yet implemented, I wouldn’t hold my breath for it becoming fully available until late in the year.
But then, I’m just a Mac user (though I do test the Windows version using CrossOver/Wine), so what do I know.
Mark
Have there been any updates on this? I have used this cross-platform for some time now, and I really need to keep using it that way but the Mac is starting to say it isn’t optimized and needs updating…
Follow this post for infrequent updates on the progress of Scrivener 3 for Windows:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=40621
Note that as far as I can tell, Lit & Latt do not set deadlines, or even guess at the month/time of year a major upgrade like this will be released. It’s a hard-learned lesson from the development hell of Scrivener for iOS that they are poor prognosticators. The updates at the link above, and activity in the forum it’s a part of, will give you as much of a sense of the eventual release date as you’re likely to get.
In fact, the only software companies that are good at prognosticating when an update will be released are those who announce a firm release date, release the software on that date–and then spend months providing “updates” to swat all the bugs that, naturally, were still in it. It’s hard, but I’d rather wait the indeterminate amount of time it takes for them to get it right.
I’ve downloaded the 3.0 beta, and using it so that I can be familiar with the new layout. The Beta reminds me that it will expire after 7/31/18. I’ve been informed in the Beta notes that files created in 3.0 aren’t compatible with previous versions. I
had assumed that 3.0 would be available by the expiration date, but now I’m thinking that won’t be the case. What about the work that I am generating? Compile to Word just before the expiration date, then Import back into 1.0 and keep working until 3.0 comes out for real (and then reopen in 3.0)? Is that the best and expected approach?
It is safe to ignore that message for now. If you read the fine print, you’ll see that it is mainly informing you that at some point in the future, if you continue to upgrade macOS to the latest version, your 32-bit software will stop working. That will probaby be over a year from now, when 10.15 is released.
If one requires 32-bit programs then I would strongly consider not upgrading macOS past the point where it can run them, until they are ready to do so. Generally speaking you’ll only be missing out on a few cosmetic updates, and a whole heap of bugs :mrgreen: anyway. Same deal as when they stopped supporting Rosetta, to my mind; I held on to 10.6 for a long time, until all software I was using was past the PowerPC dependency phase.
As for periodic expirations: those are just there to ensure old beta versions are completely out of circulation and people aren’t continually reporting old bugs. We release an updated version with a new timer whenever it is necessary to do so.
It is highly unlikely there will be a project format upgrade during the beta, if that is what you mean. That format you are using with it was established years ago at this point, initially internally for Mac alpha tests. But if we have to update it for some reason, we aren’t going to cut you off of loading your existing projects!
Thanks for participating in the beta!
Judging by the number of bugs still being reported as of 2018-07-25, I seriously doubt that release will be anytime before Sept, but my gut is telling me that it won’t be long before xmas.
That’s all OK for me, as I don’t even have a plot for my first novel yet. I am playing with this beta just to keep my thoughts organized, and trying to do the best I can as a beta tester…
My take: consider the next iteration to have all the big bugs updated (Styles, Templates, Compile). That leaves two beta’s before final release (final clean-up and then final test). Figure around a Dec release. Be aware there will be bugs in the final release, but they will be minor and rapidly fixed.
Once released, we can only hope for a “dark-mode” feature to follow in 3.X.
Considering troubled history of Scrivener v1 development, I wouldn’t expect v3 earlier than next year. L&L’s development is extremely slow, yet they have no desire to hire more people to speed it up a little.
Hiring more people doesn’t automatically equal a faster development time.
Indeed. The “troubled history” of iOS Scrivener development included multiple attempts to hire people that didn’t work out as hoped.
Katherine
I guess it’s a management problem then. Please, don’t get me wrong. Do I love Scrivener? Yes, it’s essential for my everyday work, as well as two other particular pieces of software. Do I want Scrivener’s development to be more vibrant? Yes, certainly. Those two pieces of software got two or three new major releases since 2011, they got lots of new features and at this background Scrivener looks stagnant. I know I shouldn’t compare completely different applications, yet those are neither less complex than Scrivener, nor being developed by some technological giant. And their price is almost the same.
Unless you are a developer, you really have no business comparing different pieces of software. Your comparison to their complexity is based on a user’s experience, not a devloper’s. Keith before ever developing the original Scrivener chose Mac because of all the libraries he would not have to build - it wasn’t just because Apple was “cool” compared to Windows. When the demand for a Windows version reached a high enough level, he hired a Windows team, but obviously they wanted the same program as what was available on the Mac, but that didn’t change that those libraries still did not exist. WIn Scriv development has to find and create far more than Mac, and the Mac version will always lead with the Windows version trying to replicate it without the benefit of the same tools, many of which for Windows must be pulled from other sources or developed completely from scratch.
Complexity of UX and complexity of development are far from the same thing. Your comparison based on price is also irrelevant as you do not know how many units are being sold by either one, or their profit margins. You have no clue how much capital L&L has to play with vs those you are comparing it to (especially since L&L is a private company).
As both a developer and an entrepreneur, let me assure you that L&L takes it work very seriously and I personally am amazed that they have 3 working versions (Mac, Win, iOS), plus another program (Scapple) most of which, as you have pointed out, have been out less than 9 years. I couldn’t imagine pulling that off. This is especially amazing considering Keith, who designed the original and founded the company, wasn’t a programmer when he started making it.
I too wish the Window’s version was further along, but my frustration with its pace as a user is counter-balanced by my amazement at their pace as a developer and entrepreneur.
Getting a specific piece of software developed for the OS of your choice isn’t exactly guaranteed by the United Nations Human’s Rights… 
So how many novels have you finished in the past year compared to other writers? And does your bookprice reflect the amount of effort for writing them?
Just kidding of course, but comparing innovation this way is a bit silly. Let’s just wait and see what L&L comes up with.
shrug Managing large software projects is hard. The original observation that adding people to a project doesn’t necessarily speed development came from Frederick Brooks, who among other things managed the development of OS/360 for IBM. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month If there’s a “management problem” here, it’s one universal to the industry.
Which is why L&L has always encouraged people to buy Scrivener (or not) based on what it does now, not what they hope it will do in the future.
Katherine
Ok, I get it. Then it’s an interesting research question! I’m kidding. I’m sure there are a lot of empirical evidence on correlation between speed in software engineering speed and some other variables. Quick search reveals that speed suffers severely from cross-site development practices (according to several papers with 500+ citations). Interesting…
I understand perfectly that I’m not entitled to demand anything, And in fact, I don’t. Can’t hide my frustration though. Also I’m genuinely curious why in some cases software development is considerably slower than in others. My personal observations suggest that development cycles are slowly but steadily converging across the industry, but I’m most probably wrong.