Will / Does Scrivener 3 for Windows Have Threaded Cards Like the Mac Version?

I downloaded the trial version of Windows 1.9 the other day (and posted elsewhere here trying to get some clarity on whether a Beta Windows version of 3 exists, because I have read about it on the forums, but cannot find it).

One of the things that greatly appeals to me about the Mac 3 versions of Scrivener is the threaded card feature.

Will that be included in the Windows 3 version (or is it there if the Windows Beta 3 actually does exist)?

Thank you for any replies.

You can find the Windows BETA for Windows here:

I don’t know what the threaded cards feature, but I’m assuming it’s where the cards are arranged by labels? If so, that feature is also included! As far as I know, Scrivener 3 for Windows is going to be more or less the same as the Mac version. I could be wrong though.

Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for your reply, and for the link.

I actually found the download link shortly after I posted the message - I was fooled by the fact that people are talking about version 3 for Windows, but the release is actually 2.9.

And yes, the threaded cards are the coloured labels which allow one to link cards by a coloured line, and that feature is in 2.9.

I really like that feature.

If I buy Scrivener will I be able to use the Beta 3 (really 2.9) until 3 is offcially released, or will I have to revert to using 1.9?

Thanks again.

The Beta 3 is a separate version from v1.9, so you can use it until it’s released. You just need to download the updates for the beta before the current cycle expires. If you buy Scrivener now, you’ll get access to 3.0 for free since it’s getting close to release.

(From their website): We’re currently hard at work on Scrivener 3 for Windows (yes, we’re skipping a number!). If you buy now, you’ll get a free update to Scrivener 3 when it’s available.

Thanks very much, Jeff.

L&L has used that kind of numbering trick for multiple versions now, as it lets them use a single update mechanism to service both the release and the test versions. The release version simply knows to ignore any updates that are a given number range (in this case, 2.9).

Not just L&L. This is pretty standard numbering for beta versions.


I don’t know if I’d agree that it’s standard, but it is definitely not uncommon. Much of the software versioning I see is based around how the version control system handles it, and whether what humans call the version number is just a text label or what the VCS sees as the actual version number/build number.

I have written more about this in another thread, so will keep this brief.

I have used various beta versions of different software over the years (not a huge number, but enough to know how those were numbered/labelled/titled), and this is the first time I have enconutered L&L’s way of doing things.

To me, the litmus test of the usefulness of this kind of naming convention is to ask whether it is useful and clear/understandable - my answer to that is a resounding “No”.

In this case, it is clearly useful, clear, and understandable to the fine folks of L&L, because this is how they have been doing all of their beta tests in the decade I’ve been using their software. And since they are the ones developing the software, their metrics are the one that matter, all of our talk about it aside.

Um. Yes. So?

I am just standing up for myself in expressing my experience.

And I am amazed that other people, such as yourself in your message above, would tell me that my experience does not matter.

In fact that clear message that I have received from many of the respondents on this forum (but not all, thankfully) is that I should not have this experience or that my experience is flawed in some way.

Not what forums like this are for, so this has been quite upsetting for me.

I would never even consider trying to sideline someone else’s experience, and find it rude and upsetting that some others have tried to do that to me here.

Your experience may differ from mine, but I cannot disagree with it, nor can I criticize it.

You persist in a misunderstanding. Nobody is telling you that your experience does not matter. We are, however, explaining to you that your singular experience is not as representative as you seem to think it is. It is an outlier. That is not an attack, but it is an explanation for why nobody seems to be taking any action on your feedback. This is not a moral judgement on your or your experience – but it is entirely possible and consistent to agree that yes, this is your experience, but no, your experience is not widely reflected.