Suddenly 2 instances / windows of the same project: text added to one not shown in the other - afraid of losing text

Scrivener Scrivener for Windows
21

And I consider to go on like this:

I go to the window of one of the two instances of the same project and make a back up

I go to the window of the other of the two instances of the same project and make a back up

I close the two instances / the entire project

I compare with a special program the contents of the back up of one of the two instances with the content of the original project folder

I check the changes / new texts / differences and add them to the original project (folder) with that special program (or / and open that original project in Scrivener and adapt changes manually)

after finishing that I compare with the special program the contents of the back up of the other of the two instances with the content of the original project folder

I check the changes / new texts / differences and add them to the original project (folder) with that special program (or / and open that original project in Scrivener and adapt changes manually)

done (?)

Is there anything against doing it that way?

22

My concern is that given the nature of the odd problem and your description of the text only being found in the search.indexes file in the one case, some changes made in at least one of the project instances (the “abc” test project) may not be properly saved into the underlying RTF files but are rather only being held currently in RAM and therefore won’t be part of the backup. Taking a snapshot creates a new file, rather than trying to write to one that may be somehow doubly open, so I am hoping that may be a way to preserve any text that could be in that unsaved state before closing the project.

Did you try the snapshot test for each of the instances (I’ll call them “abc” and “xyz”)? From the description of the previous test with the backups, it sounds as though project xyz saved normally (since the changes there were found in the content.rtf file where they ought to be) while abc did not. But whether that will have been true of the project as a whole or if some files may have saved from one instance and others from the other isn’t clear, so I would still go through the process I outlined of creating snapshots of everything from each instance of the project (one at a time, creating the backup from the first before going through the procedure from the second in case any conflict arises with saving the snapshots).

No, undo isn’t able to work across the multiple files in the project package, so the best you could do is undo changes in individual documents. The way I’d check for recent changes within Scrivener is by running a project search with the * wildcard searching in “All” so that everything is returned, then clicking the arrow button in the Search Results header to load the full list in the editor and switching to Outline view. Then you can add Modified Date as a column and click twice in the column header to sort the list by most recently modified. It won’t say what changed, but at least you’d know where. You could also do this in batches, limiting the scope to specific areas to help isolate the changes—rather than searching in “All”, search in “Text” and go through the recent changes; then do the same for “Notes” and “Synopsis” to check for recent edits there.

This isn’t quite true. Only some of the files within the project folder are loaded at startup; others aren’t opened until needed, when you load a document in the editor. Once loaded, the file hangs out in memory for a bit to speed working with it so you’re not constantly reloading from the hard drive every time you briefly switch to another document and back.

Since it shouldn’t be possible for two instances to be loaded in the first place and I’m not sure what’s happened in your situation to provoke this, I can’t say what might have happened with the files beyond what you’ve been able to learn through examining the project folders and backups. Ideally, all the changes for any given document edited from either instance have all been saved into the single RTF file, even if the ones from abc aren’t currently visible in xyz in Scrivener’s interface and vice versa. Otherwise, I would expect that edits only saved from one instance and any from the other only were stored in memory. A third possibility could be that there’s a temporary copy of the project saved somewhere, maybe related to a glitch with trying to read/write from the external drive, and so there are in fact two copies of the project being edited and backed up, which could explain why the backups from the two instances were different.

23

Taking a snapshot creates a new file, rather than trying to write to one that may be somehow doubly open, so I am hoping that may be a way to preserve any text that could be in that unsaved state before closing the project.

OK, yes, so then I will beginn working through your procedure as soon as I can. So I would first do all the snapshots from one instance, check if they really are done, then make a (I assume it can be an unzipped one) back up from that instance and then make the snapshots from the other instance and give them the same name as for the snapshots in the instance before so I could with a special program compare the contens of the complete two back ups. Is that OK, respectively did I understand it correctly?

For the first window of the project, click into the binder and select View ▸ Outline ▸ Expand All

The window is the same like the instance of the two instances of the same project, isn’t it? There partially are some more windows open (than the once of the two instances) of the projects, quick reference windows or so. Should I close them before starting the procedure or rather leave them like they are?

Did you try the snapshot test for each of the instances

Yes, I did. Actually I am sure to have written it…isn’t it this (or is anything else meant?):

>Does the snapshot when viewed in the inspector contain that text?

Yes, it does.

>Does the text exist in the snapshot document within the project folder?

Yes, it does. In content.rtf and .scriv\Snapshots\8540AD32-2B9C-48F8-8777-1F60E0E8D237.snapshots\2022-04-30-10-24-18+0200.rtf
24

It can be unzipped if that’s your preference; I tend to recommend zipped because it gives you an uneditable copy, so there’s no risk of accidentally overwriting while working it if it’s your one good copy.

I would give the snapshots in the second instance a unique name, not the same as what you used in the first instance. If nothing else, this will keep it clear which snapshot is which if you later copy documents into a single project. Within the project folder, the underlying RTF file representing the snapshot won’t use that name anyway but a random UUID, so it’s not going to make much difference for the external comparison tool.

I don’t follow what you’re saying here. From what I understood of your description earlier, you have two separate main project windows (that can display binder, editor, and inspector) purportedly showing the same project, and I gathered that changing the display in one did not affect the appearance of the other. If you can use the Expand All command in one and it affects both, you needn’t do it again; the point is just that everything in the binder be visible so that Select All will get everything when you go to make the snapshots.

I suppose to be most thorough, you could take individual snapshots from the open Quick Reference windows before closing them—use the Documents ▸ Snapshots ▸ menu from within the QR window; the document icon in the title bar there won’t change to show the folded corner indicating it has a snapshot, but the snapshot will be created and viewable from the main window. Then yes, go ahead and close the QR windows; it shouldn’t make a difference, really, but you might as well tidy up to avoid any extra confusion with multiple windows.

I wasn’t clear from that description whether you had taken two snapshots, one from each instance of the project window, and found two corresponding RTF files in the .scriv\Snapshots directory (and two content.rtf files within the \Data directory) or if you had only taken one but it was visible in both instances of the project window.

25

Mouton, you are amazingly generous and patient.

As I read through the recent replies again, it occurred to me how your and @kewms Katherine 's thought about two Scrivener instances might be possible.

This goes back to the installer problem where you get a different program location depending whether you install as an admin or not. There’s no checking either to ask for admin privileges or to prevent doubled installing - a long, long ago suggestion and request.

So if you have Scriv in the Programs area, plus another copy in the Uaers area, and icons on desktop or the Windows bottom taskbar, for example, to start them, I think you certainly could execute and operate both.

Given Doldut’s practices, some of the myriad and constantly available windows could be from either, and get updated with no idea of crossover. Then saving could wipe out portions of previous changes, as seems to be observed.

If Ctrl-S saves were done habituallly enough on each edit, it’s just possible that enough material might be still present to be recovered. Perhaps not all of it, as there’s a limited number of backups before they’re recycled to avoid over-filling disks. I believe the default per project is 10, which I always increase substantially to assure my own protection are adequate.

Our friend can check dates on the original backup zips in order to get an idea how far back recovery is possible – where the habit of Ctrl-S might have been followed. This is yet again a reason to copy them, preserving all information of the originals. I have no idea why this sensible idea and others are resisted…

I am sensibly avoiding pronouns, or possibly Turko-German constructions noticed, after my well-missed neighborhood life once in Basel, or any other possible suppositions as to why some conversation above drove me a little wild. We are each our own person, after all, and no one is typical :slight_smile:

Take care, any and all participating, and I hope patience also helps Doldut get best possible recovery of writings, in this situation.

Possibly also to arrive at more reliable ways of working, which are sensible for the tools. These are what any artist strives for, so that the work itself can be discovered and expressed most fluently, not so?

Clive

26

And, I couldn’t quite leave this alone and sleep yet, so here are some further ideas.

  • now that we see a way there actuallly could be two instances of Scrivener running, this fits all the hints. How else could you get two windows open on the same project? And, the duplications of project names in the list above the program icon on the Windows taskbar says the same thing.

  • I felt your idea of using snapshots to capture current in-memory content was good, Mouton, with the all-at-once taking of them minimizing chances of shifting what’s actually in memory. And then I started thinking about how to use the results for comparisons, with or without the apparently good folders and contents comparison tool Doldut very helpfully has and knows how to use.

  • the idea then came for an alternate, which as you’ll see can make the comparisons easier. This would be to do a Save As for each double-windowed project, before they are finally to be closed – one differently named for each window. Now you should have the entire working memory of each instance in its own separate and workable project.

  • Then my thinking would be to do a full compile of each of these full project versions, as plain text named appropriately. Now it’s easy to use the comparison tool to note how they differ. I would again Save As to create another copy of one of the project versions, and then copy-paste to get the desired final text from the comparison program to this final fair copy.

  • Please see if you think this is sensible, because i could think of quite an amount of permutations in what could be actually present over time, in or out of memory, give or take whatever happens when you do the group of snapshots, and etc… But we can’t know those details, practically speaking.

  • since we can’t, I’ll mention two other possibilities depending on how thorough one can be patient to get the greatest recovery.

  • the first would be to make easier use of those named snapshots. You’d do a further Save As for each of the Save As versions just above – and then revert the appropriate named snapshots into each one. This would give you a chance to have their versions of the file, even if fully saving had disturbed this, which we can’t know. You’d do the same Compile to plain text, and make comparison, to see if more useful text or at least valued ideas could be recovered. It might be worth making this effort?

  • finally, there are the backups themselves. It would be very tedious to do other than to use the Compile to text and compare method, as above, to see if there’s anything in those by now which adds to recovered information. This could be the method which makes checking the backups at alll worthwhile, or some of them?

  • a last point is that i’m concerned about those backups, because of the automatic deletion of earlier automatic (Ctrl-S or project close0 ones, as you create new backups. That Doldut has not closed his project windows is of some help here, though each Carl-S backup in the past will have eliminated an earliest backup remaining prior to it. To save copies elsewhere than the backup folder of the oldest two of their backups befor closing each double-windowed project would best conserve these for comparisons, if desired.

Ok, that’s surely enough. I’ve tried to deal with or avoid variations one could think of that only make matters more possibly complicated, and stick to most straightforward methods.

You can see what you think, and if I’ve missed something, which in this scenario is certainly easy to do! Now it is most certainly time ot sleep :slight_smile:

27

Within the project folder, the underlying RTF file representing the snapshot won’t use that name anyway but a random UUID, so it’s not going to make much difference for the external comparison tool.

So I really would have to find one by one and manually go through all of the changes? There is no way of doing that (at least partially) automatically?

I don’t follow what you’re saying here. From what I understood of your description earlier, you have two separate main project windows (that can display binder, editor, and inspector) purportedly showing the same project, and I gathered that changing the display in one did not affect the appearance of the other.

Yes, all of this is correct. A single (properly open / running) project can have more than one window. So one can open a doc, folder in a new window (instead of opening it in the main window). One can open, so to say (limited by the computer or else), as many windows from a single project as one like to, I guess. So there is one project or two of the five projects with two instances each having more windows open than the two windows showing the two instances (that can display binder, editor, and inspector each) of a single project. But I just would assume, these other windows additionally open to the two windows showing the two instances of a single project do not matter?

If you can use the Expand All command in one and it affects both, you needn’t do it again;

It does not affect both of the instances. The two instances of each of the five projects appear to run independently of each other.

I suppose to be most thorough, you could take individual snapshots from the open Quick Reference windows before closing them—use the Documents ▸ Snapshots ▸ menu from within the QR window; the document icon in the title bar there won’t change to show the folded corner indicating it has a snapshot, but the snapshot will be created and viewable from the main window. Then yes, go ahead and close the QR windows; it shouldn’t make a difference, really, but you might as well tidy up to avoid any extra confusion with multiple windows.

OK, I understand.

I wasn’t clear from that description whether you had taken two snapshots, one from each instance of the project window, and found two corresponding RTF files in the .scriv\Snapshots directory (and two content.rtf files within the \Data directory)

Sorry. Yes, it is like that. I did it again from one instance with unique chars:
https://i.imgur.com/a01R2xG.png

And from the other instance (of the same project) with other unique chars:
https://i.imgur.com/MCMzvtU.png

So the snapshots of each of the two instances are available in both of their back ups.

Thank you very much, Clive, for the very true and kind, encouraging and calming words. They give me strength (in the dark times of losing text). And many thanks for the further ideas.

This would be to do a Save As for each double-windowed project, before they are finally to be closed – one differently named for each window. Now you should have the entire working memory of each instance in its own separate and workable project.

Well, this indeed sounds like a very good idea. I didn’t think of it at all.

Then my thinking would be to do a full compile of each of these full project versions, as plain text named appropriately. Now it’s easy to use the comparison tool to note how they differ.

And this one as well, very good, I would think.

the first would be to make easier use of those named snapshots. You’d do a further Save As for each of the Save As versions just above – and then revert the appropriate named snapshots into each one. This would give you a chance to have their versions of the file, even if fully saving had disturbed this, which we can’t know. You’d do the same Compile to plain text, and make comparison, to see if more useful text or at least valued ideas could be recovered. It might be worth making this effort?

Sounds good. Sorry, what does that mean: “and then revert the appropriate named snapshots into each one.”?

finally, there are the backups themselves. It would be very tedious to do other than to use the Compile to text and compare method, as above, to see if there’s anything in those by now which adds to recovered information. This could be the method which makes checking the backups at alll worthwhile, or some of them?

Yes, I will do that, good idea, but unfortunately I do not have that many back ups.

though each Carl-S backup in the past will have eliminated an earliest backup remaining prior to it.

That is no problem here as I did not make so many back ups that this would affect negatively. And I have copied the back ups to another folder. And I set that back up remove option of Scrivener as high as possible.

Ok, that’s surely enough. I’ve tried to deal with or avoid variations one could think of that only make matters more possibly complicated, and stick to most straightforward methods.

You can see what you think, and if I’ve missed something, which in this scenario is certainly easy to do! Now it is most certainly time ot sleep :slight_smile:

Very good thoughts, many thanks. And many thanks for staying up so long to help. Good night, Clive

28

Thank you, and good morning(!), Doldat.
Let me answer your question, and then I have a little more to add.

Let me give the overall steps.

  • we’d consider one project with multiple windows at a time
  • first, I think, you’ll have done the one-step, all content Snapshots as MimeticMouton, Jennifer, so thoughtfully suggested you make.
  • then, you’ll have Saved As each multiple window’s view of a project, using an identifiable tag added to the project name. This is so we can tell between versions from the multiple windows.
  • now, we’ll deal with the pair of Saved As versions of the project, one at a time
  • what follows is the point you question. You’d open a project version, and Save As once more-- this time adding an additional tag for the name, to show it will have snapshots reverted.
  • once it’s saved with the reverted taggedname, you’d go through the project, reverting each content item’s latest Snapshot, that MM, as I think she likes to use for short, so thoughtfully had you make
  • to do what I call ‘revert’, you’d go to the content item, click that latest Snapshot to select it, then use the Roll Back button. I’d say not to agree to take another Snapshot before rolling back. This could confuse which is the important snapshot, and you have a clean copy in the first Save As project if there’s ever a need to refer to it.
  • you’ll need to do that for each content item, unless MM knows a way to mass Roll Back
  • once you’ve finished your reverts/Roll Backs, save this twice Save Ad project. Now it’s ready to be compiled to text for comparisons, which you can do at this moment or later by reopening the project.

So you see what we end up with is, a first Save As project which contains as much as possible the memory contents for its window. And as well, this double Save As project, which contains whatever was captured in the mass Snapshot step MM gave you.

Compiling both gives two text files to consider. Doing the same set of steps for the other open window on the original prroject gives its two compiled files with its versions of text. You can then compare between pairs out of the four, to discover differences which may contain writings that you want.

Ok, now I will add a reasoning and procedure which I thought about this morning.

  • first, I tried some different attempts to get more than one window on a project from a normal and stable Scrivener installation. I absolutely could not. Therefore I think your basis of problems is that you have more than one installation.

  • Let’s not go further than I’ve suggested to the team for how that might have happened. What we want is to as simply as possible get you a single, good installation, which I’ll cover in next steps.

  • You would do this procedure only after you’ve completed all the saving steps, on each of your multiple windowed projects: MM’s Snapshots, and all my Save As and steps so that you have four fresh projects for each of the projects that had multiple windows. You’d know you’d reached that point because you’d have fully closed each of the projects frome each of its windows, knowing you had these copies.

  • ok, then. Now we should have absolutely no Scrivener windows on your machine. Please, at this point, as a safety, power down your computer fully in your normal manner, and then start (boot) it up again, logging in. Now you have a fresh situation.

  • the first step is to remove what seems to be ‘the’ installation. Go to the Windows Settings, and open the Apps page. Wait a moment, and it will fill in a list of what it thinks are installations. Use the search box to find Scrivener. You may or not see more than one Scrivener listed.

  • For each listed Scrivener, select it, and then request Uninstall. Watch closely as this happens, and you may or may not see that single Scrivener listing disappear. If it doesn’t, we’ll handle that. So in any case, if there are more Scriveners listed, select each of the others in turn and Uninstall it, so that you’ve done them all.

  • Ok, now we’ll look at Windows’ idea of installations another way. Click the far-left button, the four-pane Windows icon, on the Windows bottom taskbar. Type Control Panel. It will magically show you Cpntrol Panel App. Type Return, or click on the Control Panel item now shown, to open Control Panel.

  • An alternate way to get this is to go to Home in Windows Settings, where it first opens up, and type Control Panel into the blank there, which will similarly get you an icon or text button to click.

  • now you have the old fashioned Control Panel - which is still essential for tasks like this, so they leave it. Under it’s Programs button, click ‘uninstall a program’. You get a more old-fashioned list of programs. Scroll down to find any Scriveners listed.

  • if there are Scriveners, for each one in turn, double-click it, or right-button mouse to get a choice to ‘modify or uninstall’. Answer to uninstall. You may get an alert then saying it seems to be uninstalled, but would you like to remove the item from the programs list? Answer Ok/Yes to that choicc. By now, that particular Scrivener will have disappeared from the main list. Do the same steps for any other if you see them. When no Scriveners exist, you’re finished with this step.

  • now, the fun part, because we can’t trust Windows to have really removed every trace that could caue trouble. So, we will hunt those down in the file system, in the two places such traces might be, and manually remove any that we find.

  • first, let’s take the ‘normal’ place. Open your usual Files Explorer, and go to C:\Program Files. Look down the list displayed alphabetically, and see if you discover a Scrivener or Scrivener3 Folder. If you do, for each you find, select it, then hit the Delete key on your keyboard, or right-mouse it and select Delete from the item list. Agree to the alert asking if you really want to Delete it. You might also be asked for a password from an adminstrative user, which you’ll know if you have one. Now that folder will disappear. Repeat for any other Scrivener-named folders. Be exceedingly careful that you don’t do this for any folders that aren’t Scrivener’s – you’d remove other apps from your computer!

  • that step might seem enough, but it isn’t, as there is another place Scrivener might be installed, whiich in my opinion is how you could have gotten two, thus beginning the problems.

  • so now, put this text in the address blank at the top of your Files Explorer, replacing whatever is there. Use copy-paste to get this exactly: %AppData% . Then hit return. You should see now an otherwise hidden area, with path beginning with the C:\Users folder, and ending in Local .

  • scroll down the alphabetically sorted list, and see if you have any Scrivener or Scrivener3 folders. If you do, then just as you did under Program Files, select each and fully Delete it.

  • once you have no Scrivner folders, we’re completed. There are a few other spots where Scrivener information could be hiding, but I believe these are not important as they will be over-writteb when you make a fresh Scrivener installation.

  • that is what we will do now. Best is to download the Free Trial from here, and use it to install. This will get you the very latest version assuredly, and also cover if you have trouble locating your registration code, as it will operate for a month while you would do that.

https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener/download

  • Once you’ve installed, then we are ready to proceed. I’d use this moment to open each of your Saved As projects verisons, and compile their plain text outputs, naming each of those according to the project name variations. Then at your leisure, you can make your comparisons, and save results…where? I would make one more Save As version of each project, tagged to be recovered, and use that to amass your collected differences, however you want to insert them. Once more, by labeling, you’ll have confident knowledge exactly what you are working with at any step.

  • Last point. Now that you a fresh, fully clean and ordinry single installation of Scrivener, you should never be able to open more than one window on a given project. Scrivener won’t allow it. So your work will all be in one place, saved to the one project folder, and safe. When you want to look at multiple places in a project together, that’s what the Split abilities of the Scrivener editro is for, and has very easy (small) buttons always on the screen to split or unsplit as you desire. Smooth once you learn it…

  • I think you understand for yourself what you want to do in terms of backups, while I am sure MM would be happy to suggest if you ask her.

  • And you know my thoughts about regularly closing Scrivener itself, which you can do preserving all open windows by clicking in a text and using either Files | Exit with your mouse, or Alt-F, Alt-X keys in order. When you double-click Scrivener to restart it, all those windows which will open will come again, just as you left them.

  • Windows itself; well, I wouldn’t go more than several days without powering down (Start Menu on taskbar, bottom Euro-power symbol, select Power Down). You can start up again at any time later, and get a fresh machine which hasn’t accumulated errors as Windows so often does. It’s just good practice, and done this way, I suspect and hope it wouldn’t actually alter your creative routines. The practice just above about shutting down Scrivener while preserving its open project windows fills out the availability where you’d stopped work before – and with assured backups as you’ve set them.

Doldut, my thoughts for the mornning, and with hopes as you understand that they fully get you on your way to recovering the situation.

Many thanks as are surely due to Jennifer, MM, @MimeticMouton for all she’s so thoughtfully and accurately created, as ways to best work with this.

@kewms Katherine of course for her ever insightful targetting suggestion.

A nod I think we’d each understand for the cultured nature of the conversation, and thank you, with natural regards.

Clive

29

Also in the interest of safety, especially when stressed about lost work and time… When working with backups, after unzipping the backup at a safe distance from your actual working project, I suggest that the backup project be renamed to immediately indicate that it is not your actual working project. When opened, the backup will likely look exactly like the latest version, including its name, and there may be little way to keep track of nearly identical twins without sleuthing around folders and paths. Sooner or later you may find yourself with both the backup and the latest opened at the same time and you are guaranteed to start crying and cursing out everyone. That’s why I suggest the rename.

When working with Scrivener backups, even if I don’t think I’ll have both the bak and the latest opened at once, what I do is: I copy the timestamped filename of the backup’s zip file, and I use that to rename the folder that the backup is now in, and also to rename the .scrivx project file inside the renamed folder. These two renames fully rename the project, which will open up under that name, which will always be visible at the top of the screen, so you can always be sure you know where you are.

I would like it if Scrivener’s backup process could do that renaming when the backup is first created, and rename both the top folder and the .scrivx inside the zipped bak to the same timestamped “rename” as the zipped bak itself. The project inside the zip is fairly unlikely to ever see the light of day. But were it ever needed, this versioning rename of the project would make it much easier and safer to work with.

1 Like
30

Yes, make that a feature request, please, @Mad_Girl_Disease – excellent idea…

A ‘Rename Project’ using the same code to do it right could also be useful, I think, particularly if it could be used with or without opening the project, it occurs to me.

Two File menu items, Rename This Project, and Rename A Project…’ would do it, cover the age-old problem of Mac file structure on Windows.

Welcome please, to include :slight_smile:

1 Like
31

Good morning, Clive,

Thank you very much for your tremendous help.

The computer crashed while I still was testing some behaviour of Scrivener (interacting (or not) between two instances of the same projects, what is saved by one instance and what then is saved or deleted by the other, or what is kept in the other when saving in one, etc.), caused (don’t know why) not by Scrivener obviously, but by a click on a music track in a play list in a music player in between. So I guess, the text / edits are irretrievably lost now. Well, this saves (days or weeks - I don’t know - of) the effort of restoring after all.

Thank you very, very much again, Clive. For the incredible work you did, the effort you did to help and the nice words and, of course, the perfect instructions. I couldn’t have gotten better help.

And many thanks, MimeticMouton. And the others, helped a lot.

After starting one of the projects this was shown:

After clicking “Close” of that message this message showed up:

Obviously one file is shown as recovered, not much in there:

I assume, the only thing that remains to be done now is just to compare back ups (done before recognizing the problem), like Clive already said.

32

Well, that’s one way to not have to chase down what had been possibly the latest content, isn’t it.

I hope the experience will help you see the sense in what was said much earlier, about closing apps regularly, and the same with Windows itself.

The crash you had is typical; internal errors accumulate, and then the house of cards comes down.

What’s important now, before you do any further work using Scrivener, is to do the procedure of assuring you have only one installation.

This is the part that begins with ‘You would do this procedure only after you’ve completed all the saving steps’, in the long message above. It’s a complete cleanout of any installations, and then a fresh install so that you have only the one, and up-to-date.

I would certainly do this before you do any further work on recoveries, or any writing at all. You don’t want to re-invent the situation we’ve tried to answer, am sure :slight_smile:

Ok, once again, good fortune, Doldut. I think you have a ‘free spirit’ attitude which may be quite useful in imagining for fiction, while in expressing what you think up, there is a discipline involved, isn’t there.

I suspect we see here that this is as true with the tools as it is with the forms in language; maybe an interesting way to conceive it, do you think?

Kind regards,
Clive

33

I hope the experience will help you see the sense in what was said much earlier, about closing apps regularly, and the same with Windows itself.

May be I am not 100 % sure the crash definetely was caused by that. In any case, it helps to reconfirm my knowledge of what rubbish Windows is and…but, yes, I regularly will (try to) restart Win much earlier from now on anyway (alone, because it gets slower and slower during a session).

The crash you had is typical; internal errors accumulate, and then the house of cards comes down.

So there are statistics / informations / researches about crashes caused by running Win for a (too) long time?

This is the part that begins with ‘You would do this procedure only after you’ve completed all the saving steps’, in the long message above. It’s a complete cleanout of any installations, and then a fresh install so that you have only the one, and up-to-date.

Yes, thank you for that part as well. But I guess, it is the part that begins with removing Scrivener finally and not using it again (in this life and the next one). Respectively with exporting / compiling all of the projects before doing it.

Ok, once again, good fortune, Doldut. I think you have a ‘free spirit’ attitude which may be quite useful in imagining for fiction, while in expressing what you think up, there is a discipline involved, isn’t there.

Thank you very much! Fortune is what I really need (as you can see). Spirit, well, not that free, unfortunately. Discipline, well, a little more wouldn’t hurt, I guess. But definitely a lot of anger, rage…

I suspect we see here that this is as true with the tools as it is with the forms in language; maybe an interesting way to conceive it, do you think?

Sorry, I am not quite understanding.

Thank you very much again, Clive, for your amazing help, ideas and kind words!

34

So there are statistics / informations / researches about crashes caused by running Win for a (too) long time?

It is not that simple. Unlike Apple, which has complete control over the hardware and software in their systems, Windows is much more of an open system where thousands of hardware and software vendors are free to work. That means there is an incredibly large number of failure paths and Windows does a pretty good job of stopping many problems before they get serious.

Device drivers, the software that sits between Windows and some piece of hardware connected to your computer, such as a monitor or disk drive, are written mostly by third party developers and are a frequent cause of crashes and less serious problems. Microsoft offers a certification program to driver developers but it is not a requirement that all device drivers pass certification (though I think you can tell Windows to refuse to install any driver that is not certified).

Finally, software developers can cause problems with their programs, mostly through ignorance of the Windows API (Application Programming Interface), which is a huge number of function calls and service calls available to developers to do all kinds of things. Windows does a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure programmer errors do not cause major problems outside of the program that has the error.

So when Windows crashes, it could be Microsoft’s fault, but it takes some investigation to determine which software module caused the problem and what you may do about it.

2 Likes
35

Thank you for the interesting thoughts.

Yes, using Win is extremely error prone. That is my experience as well. Apple, I have never used it, do not like that Company, but after all the devices just seem to work. And other operating systems, Linux, etc. seem to have too many restrictions compared to Windows.

There are so many comments / statements about the quality (of coding) of Windows (on the Internet), some say it is incredible junk, others say it is not that incredible junk, some say it is the user, so I really do not have any idea of what is right or not wrong, maybe I’m the culprit myself. Everything I (think I) know is that all of that Windows rubbish does not work properly or at all. Problems all the time.

The same with Scrivener. I unfortunately started writing (respectively tried starting to write) screenplays with Scrivener (well, yes, I first should have started writing one screenplay at a time to see how it goes, but I couldn’t imagine It can get that worse, now I guess, it might be not that easy to get the screenplays into another program because I used some options not available in other screenplay programs) with that template, screenplay for…well can’t remember, that one for normal screenplays, for movies or so. There is ( felt) nothing I got to work. All the time I get the wrong formats, respectively to get the right one is extremely laborious (for me). The cursor is somewhere under the line here, very annoying (for me), so hitting the line is not that easy all the time. It just does not work at all (for me). Scrivener is just a creativity killer, while I tried to cope with that program I forget the lines / get out of the flow of writing. And there are so many other bugs / shortcomings, things I cannot / could not get working (outside of trying to write screenplays).

I thought, is there possibly a beta or alpha version on the manufacturer’s website that I could have caught, but obviously there isn’t one. Actually I cannot imagine a “stable” program can work so badly.

36

  • if you’ll do the full uninstall-clean install I’ve detailed for you, I think you’ll find Scrivner entirely reliable as far as preserving work, as do all the rest of us, and for most things you want to do, the same. There are a few areas which aren’t perfect (see discussion on indented lists) but there are quite good workarounds for nearly everything, available to anyone on this forum.

  • the reason for two opinions about Windows is fundamentallly this. From the point of Windows NT forward (a long time ago), the core of windows has been very reliable. It was designed by people who knew their business, after a large company failed so that they would be available to create a proper foundation. Then a very bad architecture was overlaid, which has been much improved, but has grown beyond the capabbility of really anyone to fully fix it. As happens with software.

  • For many years, Microsoft themselves have had only one answer when a machine gets rough: fully remove and reinstall Windows. This has nothing to do with the multiple install issue you look to have with Scrivener, except in the nature of the fix. And you will lose evrerything on the Windows machine by reinstlaling, unless you are very careful to follow a specific set of recent instructions. You’d still need to reinstall all software applications you 've put on the machine. Not to be attempted without thorough knowledge, and a reliable entire backup of everthing on the machine. By someone who, likely hired, who really cares to precisely do this.

  • Apple. It’s a lot better, aleays has been, attracts designers who keep it so. There are reasons when we use something else, all individual. I have no idea the reason other than human mendacity for all the stylish talk about despising it. My iPad is a marvel. And not perfect either.

  • all this talk about furies. Well, as someone said today in the midst of another discussion, ‘I’d rather write.’ Cultivating that thought is likely quite healthy, it would seem…

37

Yes, I understand.

if you’ll do the full uninstall-clean install I’ve detailed for you, I think you’ll find Scrivner entirely reliable as far as preserving work, as do all the rest of us, and for most things you want to do, the same. There are a few areas which aren’t perfect (see discussion on indented lists) but there are quite good workarounds for nearly everything, available to anyone on this forum.

Actually I just want to USE a program, not to handle with workarounds, researching solutions to problems all the time because the basics don’t work. I actually just want a working program. Yes, I am really wondering how one can write a screenplay with that program and I can’t believe anyone would do it again or until to the end at all after once having tried it. Other writing programs just do work. Respectively the basics of them. And the two instances issue excludes it definitely from going on using it. By the way, as far as I could discover while testing for recover, if one writes in the doc / folder of one instance some seconds or so after the file which contains the content, an rtf file or so, is saved so the content of the same file / folder in the other instance automatically gets overwritten. The content is still available in the editor / the other instance / the (other) GUI. And it will be saved again as well to the same file after again having written in it and remove the content of the file in the instance before and so on. So I will have lost a lot of text / edits. Unfortunately, no backup could have helped with such problems, I guess.

For many years, Microsoft themselves have had only one answer when a machine gets rough: fully remove and reinstall Windows. This has nothing to do with the multiple install issue you look to have with Scrivener, except in the nature of the fix. And you will lose evrerything on the Windows machine by reinstlaling, unless you are very careful to follow a specific set of recent instructions. You’d still need to reinstall all software applications you 've put on the machine. Not to be attempted without thorough knowledge, and a reliable entire backup of everthing on the machine.

Yes, that’s why I use almost exclusively portable programs on a separate partition and why I store all of my own data on another, external drive always being connected to the computer, everything separated from the operating system. But even that doesn’t help with the two instances problem.

all this talk about furies. Well, as someone said today in the midst of another discussion, ‘I’d rather write.’ Cultivating that thought is likely quite healthy, it would seem…

Well, yes, that might be true and if he’s not using Scrivener, that could even work. And yes, too much talk about furies, seems to be ubiquitous.

38

listen, my friend. It’s from a middle-of-night wakeup, so it will be succinct and short.

  • you are entirely wrong in all your theories of co-working two instances. Fundamentals of how tasks and operating systems work. You might seem to see it funktioniert sometimes, but it will surely fail before long, and you will at minimum lose most or all of your updates from one thread. Keep going, and the same thing will soon happen to the other.

  • Yes, I have all the depth and varieties of background to know for sure.

  • you are wasting immense amount of time, and some other things, with all this theorizing. Praxis is what you will benefit from.

  • No, other screenwriting, etc. tools are not at all without both real errors, and real frustrations. It took enormous time and effort (many years and finally a brilliant person whose work remains as far as I know the foundation, then years more) for Microsoft Word to become reliable enough to generally work. And it still has errors, guess what, in exactly the areas Scrivener hasn’t reached full closure on.

  • And screenwriting programs…they are both rife with errors, and also are often very awkward and crude to use. Cf. web discussion.

  • Software itself, in the real, is indeed very difficult, and nothing so constructed is perfect. This is part of the concrete world you want to write about, though it need not be at all on the surface of attention or expression, if it is a very human task.

  • what we do with human tasks is make adjustments, sensibly get on with what will work for us. There are refinements on this to discover, yes.

  • Again, the idea of retaining the double-install and having it do anything but recreate the problems you are so reluctant to face, is only a fantasy - in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of that word. It is not…imaginative.

As the Italian woman of some depth and true dependability said once, ‘Fatto’.

It was with satisfaction. I liked her well.

2 Likes
39

And if it helps you, I’d let you know that I spent a very long day going much the same kind of reconstructive path – because Windows was on the edge of failing completely.

Now it’s healthy, at the cost of a rebuild and proof much like what would have had to be done to load up a fresh piece of equipment with the environment. The cost was saved, the time the same, I for myself realized.

So we go, sometimes; not so?

1 Like
40

Ah, sorry, didn’t want to bother you in the middle of the night. Many thanks even more for your answer and the kind words even at that time.

What Italian woman?

Well, very sorry about that, glad you got it working again, much the same kind of reconstruction path for Scrivener (files / content)? I would think, Win always is failing partially or completely. May be a good operating system for planes, power plants and war operations.

Yes yes, indeed, so we go sometimes or more often.

1 Like