Totally agreed. There is some development utility in releasing these revisions if the dev team (if there is even a ‘team’) is working its way down a knock list, fixing broken stuff along the way so that the list is finally gone. Not that the method is any good if it doesn’t ultimately launch a project or alternatively drives customers away.
I note that Facebook went from a handful of people in 2004 to a15 billion dollar company in 4 years with pages numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and planning an international headquarters in the EU while they redid and expanded their code more than once. Not that a souped up word processor with an already defined feature set, used by word nerds such as myself really compares to the pressure of a FB type of entity. .
This should have been done, rolled out the door years ago. And certainly their launch date should never have been a secret, nor used as a rope a dope tease for customers.
This I agree with - it should be much easier to install the new version than it is right now and I hope it is easier when this app goes out of beta. Typically application updates are small and only change the files that were updated (plus a recompiled application binary, which should be small and link to other files/libraries to keep it small).
You may have limited experience, then. Under the hood, a lot more software than you think is doing uninstall/install updated version (all wrapped behind a pretty installer routine that hides it from you) rather than trying to patch existing binaries/files.
As long as the installer knows to save/reapply the appropriate settings from one version to the next, and you end up with the new version, who actually cares (other than the developers) about how it’s done?
This seems to be an argument against using the beta. The “pretty installer routine” is, clearly, not applicable when using the beta. Moreover, updating the beta requires a lot of user intervention: From the beta testing announcement thread:
“Please be sure to uninstall previous betas before installing this Beta. If you wish, your program preferences can be saved first via the “Manage…” button in File > Options, then reloaded after the fresh installation. Bear in mind that changes between betas may affect restoring settings, and if you are experiencing oddities, please try resetting to the defaults.”
That’s quite a lot of work for the average user. So there is a really strange sub-argument happening in this thread. The “pretty installer routine” means that when MacScriv asks me if I want to update, I save everything, click yes and let the automated process do its work. Typically takes a few seconds, and then I’m back working. That was also my experience of Windows v1 (until the forced migration to Paddle rendered my copy essentially unusable). One would expect the update process for Windows v3 to be equally smooth, and that users will not be required to manually uninstall Scrivener before updating to 3.1, 3.2, etc.
That is not a comment on the developers or the release timetable, just an observation on the contention that updating the beta = updating stable, released software.
Yes, that is why I have chosen to continue to use V1.9 for Windows. I tried the beta a while back, and I found it interfering with what I want to do with Scrivener in the first place. I’ve been a beta tester for Photography apps and looking for errors and omissions is best left to those who enjoy that sort of thing.
I have flirted with other writing/authoring software, and each of them have their own specific ‘charms’, and I can see why they are perfect for some people. But I like the known stability of V1.9, I know what I can do with it, and what I cannot. I figure that when V3 for Windows finally does come out, I will be pleasantly surprised, and I will only have to learn it once!
I think those instructions were written when the Betas were first made available. Recently, up until RC12 or 13 it has been perfectly feasible to upgrade the Beta using the option within the app. Sadly, some sort of change in an update to Qt at that point has been causing the internal updater to fail and crash Scrivener. So for the moment you have to do a manual install until the devs can work round it. You can read about it in this long thread:
Nobody contended that. It’s still a beta. You’re still implicitly agreeing to be doing more testing and providing a higher level of feedback than you would for a normal release. The beta is not simply a loophole to use the most recent software without having to worry about licensing; the increased update tempo is part and parcel of this agreement.
For those who are participating in the beta and following the discussions there, the quote you mentioned has been talked about. Obviously, if every user stuck to that, nobody would be testing the built-in updater logic. There are many of us in the beta who simply use the in-app updater and have been doing so for many versions with no major issues. There’s always the chance that we see something weird happen and have to manually uninstall/reinstall to validate. And if you aren’t opening up Scrivener before the expiration date, then you have to manually uninstall/reinstall (or reset the system clock).
But none of this changes the fact it’s a beta test. More potential work is required, and if one isn’t good with doing that work, then one perhaps may not want to use the beta. To use it and then gripe about the conditions of being in a beta is disingenuous at best. We’re writers, allegedly. Words still mean things.
Context. Some people were expressing discontent about the update cadence of the beta, and folks were pointing out that updates for released, production software happen just as often (if not more so). Updates are just a fact of life in the modern computing era.
Some people are really stretching to find reasons to justify being jerks to L&L out of their sense of entitlement.
As Devin said, I’m only suggesting that ALL software gets updated and some of it monthly. From big names. To address DEFECTS that were released to production. If MS followed the level of testing and quality control that L&L is following, Vista would have never happened
Because user feedback would have driven feature development instead of “theoretical need” driving feature development.
MS would have fixed KNOWN BUGS before releasing every OS. One could suggest that Win 10, Mac OS after Lion, and every linux product ever would be DOA as well.
What I am unclear of is how the rate of update is too frequent for Scrivener beta but not for every other MS, Apple and Linux product. Especially the core OS that is the foundation for all software. If MS/Apple/Linux can’t release less frequently, and no one is complaining to them, then I don’t see the issue with the L&L BETA having a monthly release.
For me, I just don’t like having to go to the download link in the forums to reinstall every month (updating from within the app doesn’t work for me). I like keeping my stuff up to date and it is just another step to update this one. Not a big deal at all since it’s a beta and i’m sure it will be just like the mac Scrivener process by the time it releases to the public.
Now if there is an argument against how often it updates, that’s just silly. The only time frequent updates are bad are if they are SUPER frequent to the point of instability (updating daily for example and breaking things with every update because of lack of quality control). I don’t see that at all here.
Are you participating in the relevant beta forum discussions about this? There are a few workarounds that have been discussed that might remove this issue for you until such time as they can get Qt to deal with the underlying bug.
I wasn’t aware there were any - I honestly hadn’t looked into it. I primarily write from my Macbook Pro so I typically use the mac version. I only use the beta Windows version on my linux desktop about once a week or I probably would have looked into it more. I can try to find one of the discussions - or if you have a thread that you think would be helpful, could you direct me to it? Thanks!
I gave up on the beta early on because installing and uninstalling every month was more than I wanted to do. Admittedly I’m not one of those wild for version 3 to start with. My Scrivener use is basic enough the new features don’t make much difference. In fact I don’t like the Inspector changes or the new “modern” look. I spent all sorts of time changing mine to look like 1.9. - but I figure being a stick-in-the-mud, I’d better get used to 3. If changing the spidery look of this forum were easy, I’d do that too.
But I digress.
Some months ago I mentioned avoiding the uninstall/install procedure here in the forum in passing, and someone said why bother, just do an update each time. So I installed the beta again and tried just doing updates and have been doing that for 4 or 5 months now without problem. I can see why someone with only one PC would consider it a risk, but since I have two machines and use Dropbox and backup every day to a USB also, I don’t consider it a risk - if an update screws up on the laptop I use regularly, I’ll do the uninstall and reinstall on the desktop.
If I only had one PC, I’d be a nervous wreck about my writing all the time without Scrivener updates even entering into it.
I’m starting to feel like the Scrivener 3 for Windows has been a scam. I understand that quality software takes time to develop, but I purchased in spring of 2018 along with language that Scrivener 3 for Windows would be coming out soon (as in 2018 soon). After months upon months of waiting, I’ve finally asked Literature and Latte for a refund, or at least a license to the Mac OS version of Scrivener 3. They got back to me and said they could do neither.
You purchased Scrivener 1.9 in 2018. It remains fully functional to this day. You have also had access to the steadily improving Scrivener 3 beta for that entire time.
For the love of all that’s holy, just finish Version 3 for Windows. I fully realize we are the bastard red-headed stepchild of this company, but for criminy’s sake I’m sick of release candidates and installing software every few months. If there was a decent alternative to your software, I would have moved to it by now.
- but I figure being a stick-in-the-mud, I’d better get used to 3. If changing the spidery look of this forum were easy, I’d do that too.