Scrivener 3 Windows Release

Hi Jaaaarne,

Couple of responses to your points.

But this isn’t really applicable to Scrivener, is it. When first released Scrivener was certainly a groundbreaking, innovative app. However, 10 years or so down the road, Scrivener is now a mature product with a large, sophisticated customer base, some of whom make their living using Scrivener. I am grateful that L&L has not succumbed to the temptation of prematurely releasing a buggy product for increased revenue.

By “strengthen the team” do you mean “hire more developers”? The thing is, and of course this is complete speculation on my part, I suspect L&L is just about as big as Keith wants it to be, although I could see them trying to hire an iOS developer, to allow Keith to focus on Mac. But finding the right person is not a trivial undertaking.

There seems to be a plethora of markdown editors out there now, so it seems like a good choice. Best of luck, I hope you find something that works for you.


“Consistency is not a human trait.” - Maude

There is a plan. Releasing the betas is part of that plan. What they’re not telling us, and what people are feeling entitled to (and it is that sense of entitlement that is the reason WHY they are not telling us) is what their current planned dates are. I realize that the dates are all some people are interested in, but L&L have been very straightforward from the get-go this time that they would not be giving dates, that the process would take as long as it takes.

If you have been using the various betas as they have been released, you can see clearly that there is a significant amount of progress being made and the trajectory for catching up to the Mac version is actually pretty good.

But to say there’s not a a plan is not accurate.

I’m not the topic starter. And you’ve missed my point entirely. Not to mention that not having a version for an OS at all and having an inferior version for an OS are two quite different things.

Also. To buy a Mac I need to stop eating for about three months. Kindly get out of your first world bubble from time to time, will you.

I think you’ve mixed me up with somebody else. :slight_smile:

I was talking about managing customers’ expectations, which, frankly, L&L is doing a so-so job of. That’s all. Communication to the customers is important. See another user’s post below. They’re speaking about being frustrated at empty promises. This is customer communication and managing expectations. How come L&L doesn’t see it? Talk to people, give them something other than “one day we will release it”.

I was not talking about refusing Windows beta. Simply because I’m on Linux 3/4 of time. :slight_smile:

Nobody promised it will be an easy feat. But you see, if the project is growing, if they want to cover more platforms, if the bar keeps being raised, then hiring more professionals is inevitable. Otherwise a bottleneck is created. Two good devs will be better than one. Three good devs will be better than two.

Thank you. :slight_smile: I’ve found a couple of apps that look promising, I will try them out this November. Although I do realise that switching to a new software before NaNo is a bit of a crazy move. :slight_smile: But then, NaNo itself is a crazy idea, isn’t. :slight_smile:

Anyway, I’m really thankful for Scrivener. It has changed the way I write, and it has been a great experience. Hope everything works out in the best way possible.

Hope to return to it some day in future, when more OS are supported. :smiley:

Like many topics in software development, this seemingly intuitive statement is incorrect more often than it is correct. Even good devs require ramp-up time to figure out how to work with the existing code, and for a non-trivial codebase like Scrivener, that time is typically measured in months – possibly even years, given the specific requirements for experience in the framework being used, expertise in the text editing system, learning the customizations and overrides of the text editing system, etc. In the long run, of course, having those experienced devs will help, but in the short term, adding bodies usually decreases overall efficiency during the learning curve.

If you haven’t read it, track down a copy of The Mythical Man-Month and peruse it. It does a wonderful job of explaining why throwing more developers at a problem is usually the wrong solution to a time crunch.

Hi Jaaaarne,

The thing is, if they must have the new release now, it’s available now! And for no additional cost!

Albeit as you say a bit buggy in some scenarios.


Am I right to assume that at least there will be a new beta for Scrivener 3/Windows once the current beta expires?



Quick question: is the Windows Scriv 3 beta able to export ePub 3 files?

If not, does the iOS version of Scrivener export ePub 3 files? (I have an iPad Air 2)

I need to produce a valid ePub 3 file for upload to IngramSpark for publishing. So far I haven’t been able to find a way to produce an ePub 3 file that doesn’t generate errors in ePub validators. Ingram requires ePub 3 files to pass the validation at this site:


Happy to see they won’t release “buggy” versions. It is the worst kind of strategy, breaking the trust of your customers.
The current beta is very very slow and 1.9 is still a very good product. And although some new features of Scrivener 3 would be very helpful for my next writing phase, I’ll just stick with 1.9. I do not have time to beta-test a product.

The news that Scrivener 3 for Windows will not after all be available in 2018 is very disappointing indeed.

As for Macs, I bought a new Macbook Pro in July.
And in August.
And in September.
And in October.
And in November.
In each of them, the “3rd generation improved keyboard” failed, generally starting with “E” and space bar.

There are no portable Macs without the butterfly keyboard left, which meant I had to learn to live with Windows. Scrivener is the program I use 80% of the time. The current beta is almost what I would like it to be :wink: Also its current price of zero euro works very well for me.

As for release date, it’s been mentioned that it will come “later in 2018”, now that we know it won’t, people are complaining and demanding the “real” date. Which means that either we get a date, then it doesn’t work 100% yet and we’ll complain, or we won’t get a date and we’ll also complain.

I’m good as things are. (I also have a Hackintosh for the final compile unless Win version is out in time, which for me means beginning of February the latest.) (And I click Save every ten seconds or so.)

For me, personally, I’m glad the devs are taking the time they need before publishing v3 as a finished commercial product. I’d have it no other way.

I’m just wondering, however, if anyone might tell me about the experience of using the 2.9 beta that ends mid December. Does it function well enough to actually transfer work and use it on a daily basis as a main editor?

Beta release notes say that the latest release is pretty much done, except for compile-related parts. And if I’m not planning on the project I have in mind being in a state to do that for a while still, do you people who have actually tried or are using the beta think that it is stable enough and functional enough to give it a go?

I have the 1.x paid and have been doing a lot of work in it for years now. And will most certainly buy v3 come release day. But I do have need of some of the features in v3 to get on from the state my work is in right now. And finding workarounds that will have to be manually changed and fixed after finally being able to move on to v3 isn’t really an option. It’ll disrupt the project and my creative process too much, I fear. Too much work involved.

So I’m willing to try a beta that is at least almost as solid as, and very close to being, a release candidate, as long as it is stable enough that I can do my thing without risking corrupted files, lost progress and the like. And I do not yet need to worry about compilation issues.

In relation to what I specify as my personal user case, what do you users with experience of the latest betas (and hopefully support staff/devs) think I should do? Should I stick with 1.9.x or should I try the 2.9.x beta, so long as I don’t have use of the compile feature yet?

And, also, have anyone experienced any problems with compatibility when switching between betas? Or should one perhaps expect a bump in the road - of any kind - when finally moving from beta to final release ?

I’d recommend checking out the Beta forum and seeing if there are any discussions there that look like they’d interfere with your particular working practices.

As far as stability and practical functionality goes – I’ve been using the beta pretty much exclusively ever since it first came out, and have never seen a crash or experienced loss of work / data; at this point, my daily backups to 1.9.x are more a force of habit than anything else. Almost all the bugs I’ve had issues with have been squashed by now, and the few that remain are minor at worst. Speaking only from my own personal experience (but of course others may vary), I honestly can’t see any reason not to use and enjoy it.

As to compatibility from beta to beta, I’ve certainly not had any issues at least since they implemented the in-program updates. Again, others may vary, and I’m always careful to back up before updating, just to be safe, but it seems pretty smooth and seamless to me thus far.

Hope that helps. :slight_smile:

Good advice above, and thanks for sharing your experience with the beta.

My understanding is there is no backward compatibility yet between v1.9 and the Win Beta (no export function), so when you say make “my daily backups to 1.9.x”, do you mean copy/paste from Beta docs to 1.9 docs?


Apologies for not being specific! Yep, that’s exactly what I meant – copy/pasting the day’s work from the Beta project to a separate one in 1.9.x! I’ve never actually needed to fall back on it, but it’s great peace of mind to know it’s there in case I do.

Ah, too bad! I was hoping you’d found some other nifty workaround that I’d missed. :slight_smile:

Lack of a Beta → 1.9 export feature is why I don’t spend much time messing with the Beta. My current writing process isn’t very linear, so I could change many documents over the course of an editing session, and I’d be fearful I’d missed copying something back to the 1.9 version.

But thanks for letting me know!

The beta Compile function appears to be complete enough to use for archive/backup copies for your own use, so you might consider doing that rather than (or in addition to) copying to a Win Scriv 1.9 project.

That has the added advantage of starting to build familiarity with the new Compile function, which at least on the Mac was the single most challenging aspect of the Scrivener 3 transition.


I’ve been using the Scrivener 3 Beta as my main writing tool since October 2017. Never had a problem with data loss or crashes. It’s still laggy when I jump from scene to scene, but I’m confident this will be fixed before it’s released. I’m sad the final version won’t be out in 2018, but it can’t be helped and no amount of complaining will change that. If you have the choice between being unhappy and being patient and optimistic, your life will be much nicer if you choose the second. :slight_smile:

Where did this news appear? I missed it. Not that I’ve been waiting with bated breath, but still, I’d like to keep up.