Some of the new stuff in Scrivener 3 is pretty exciting. Check it out for yourself: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/blog/

A single CSS file in EPUB export? YES
Automatic conversion to MultiMarkdown? YES

I've built a pretty nice Scrivener workflow, based on MultiMarkdown, already. The upgrades should let me simplify it, at least for EPUB (my primary output). I've built two different transforms to print as well (XSL:FO, and typesetter markup).

Now if L&L gives us the ability to pull in documents from a library, I'll be in TAKE MY MONEY NOW mode.

Still irritates me that the OS with 85% of the market continues to get the short end of the stick in their development. A look at their changes reminds me that just about *every* text processing software has had these "improvements" for quite awhile.

Maybe all of that is why I no longer bother with Scrivener.

I'd suggest cutting them some slack. The blog says (repeatedly) they'll do macOS first, then Windows. There's only two developers according to their site -- we're not looking at corporate Adobe here. And if 85% of their users demanded Windows apps you can probably assume they'd flip their plans 180 degrees. Assuming they are rational, they go first where they know the money is.

Listerene wrote:

Still irritates me that the OS with 85% of the market continues to get
the short end of the stick in their development. A look at their changes
reminds me that just about *every* text processing software has had
these "improvements" for quite awhile.

Maybe all of that is why I no longer bother with Scrivener.

I second that emotion.

Literature & Latte seems pretty solid, but whenever I read on this forum about a Mac-only developer going out of business, or being "forced" to rely on a subscription model to stay in business, the first reaction is: maybe you should have put out a Windows version of your product. At least there *is* a Windows version of Scrivener, though it does sleep in the cupboard beneath the stairs most of the time.

Larry Kollar wrote:

I've built a pretty nice Scrivener workflow, based on MultiMarkdown

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing your workflow with us?

I'd cut Listerene some slack as well. It can be extremely frustrating for Windows users to read about all the great Mac software they can't use. I'm sure Literature & Latte does know where the money is, at least for their product, but it still goes against logic to ignore (or at least not give parity to) the far greater number of Windows users.

What writing app do you use in Windows instead of Scrivener?

In my experience, Scrivener for Windows is a pretty full-featured writing suite in its own right. Yes, compared to the Mac version, it isn't as feature-rich, but I haven't found a better single-solution writing app for Windows.

Steve Z.

Listerene wrote:

Still irritates me that the OS with 85% of the market continues to get
the short end of the stick in their development.

First: We don't know how many of their customers use the Mac, the Windows, the iOS or the Linux version.
Second: I have both the Windows and the Mac version, and I can do everything I need to to in the Windows version. I can't understand the Windows users' whining. (And: Yes, I am aware of the differences between the Mac and the Win version).

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

What writing app do you use in Windows instead of Scrivener?

In my experience, Scrivener for Windows is a pretty full-featured
writing suite in its own right. Yes, compared to the Mac version, it
isn't as feature-rich, but I haven't found a better single-solution
writing app for Windows.

Steve Z.

I think it's true to say that most of the reasonably well-known author-users of Scrivener on the Mac came to it and first successfully used it for (published) books when it was significantly less capable than Scrivener for Windows is now.

The problem for Scrivener's Windows development is that it started at least five years after Keith Blount had started work on the Mac version, and by and large despite considerable efforts by the (two-man) Windows team, the Mac version remains more advanced.

Why did Keith start on the Mac, not Windows? The arguments have been rehearsed on this forum previously. But if I remember correctly Keith has written that the Mac developing environment was simply more encouraging. In particular, the "frameworks and tools" that he needed (I take it this means "off-the-shelf pieces of code") were available for OSX (now macOS) at little or no cost, and they simply weren't available at all for Windows. He'd have had to code them himself, and that would have taken far longer.

That I believe is the reason that Scrivener was first launched on the Mac, despite economic logic perhaps suggesting that it was the wrong thing to do. (I hope I haven't misquoted Keith.)

Now, I believe the circumstances have changed. Keith has written several times that Scrivener for Windows is skipping its Version 2 and is aiming for a Version 3 launch which will have "feature-parity" with Scrivener for the Mac at some point during 2018.

Hugh, I think you have this all exactly right. As a Windows-only user, I remember waiting years for WinScriv, and I am extremely grateful for it! Almost none of the other wonderful-sounding Mac tools lauded by folks on this forum have even *considered* porting to Windows. So, again, I am extremely grateful to the L&L team. For this alone they should be cut a *lot* of slack by Win users. I have total respect, too, for the fact that they have put their loyal Mac user base first even as they have rolled out the Win version. And I am incredibly excited for the coming v3 for Windows!

Cheers,
David

Hugh wrote:

I think it's true to say that most of the reasonably well-known
author-users of Scrivener on the Mac came to it and first successfully
used it for (published) books when it was significantly less capable
than Scrivener for Windows is now.

The problem for Scrivener's Windows development is that it started at
least five years after Keith Blount had started work on the Mac version,
and by and large despite considerable efforts by the (two-man) Windows
team, the Mac version remains more advanced.

Now, I believe the circumstances have changed. Keith has written several
times that Scrivener for Windows is skipping its Version 2 and is aiming
for a Version 3 launch which will have "feature-parity" with Scrivener
for the Mac at some point during 2018.

Dr Andus wrote:

>I've built a pretty nice Scrivener workflow, based on MultiMarkdown

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing your workflow with us?

Sure! I'm working on a formal series (with illustrations) at my writing blog, http://www.larrykollar.com/ —but I can give you the TL;DR version here.

I use Scrivener to structure the book, just like in a non-MMD workflow. But I use the MMD **bold** and *italic* constructs all the way through (and it looks like that won't be a requirement for Scriv 3). For typewriter text (in fiction, I use it for text messages the characters send each other), I use American Typewriter and "Preserve Formatting"—character presets with that attribute get converted to backticks (`this is a text msg`) at Compile time.

Compile is where the magic happens. I make use of MMD's transclude construct for section breaks, where {{file.html}} gets replaced with the contents of file.html. One of the neat things about this is, if you use * for the extension (like {{file.*}}), MMD uses file.html for HTML output, file.odt for ODT output, and so forth. For chapter breaks, I have Scrivener insert (more about this later). I also have a front matter preset defined.

So, for eBooks, I compile to MMD using the front matter preset (basically "{{frontmatter.*}}" to insert a title page and copyright page). I use MMD to create an HTML file, load it to Sigil, remove the tag because EPUBCHECK chokes on it, then hit F6 (split at markers). Boom, I have a formatted EPUB, and all I have to do is generate the TOC.

For printed books, I compile to MMD *without* the front matter preset. MMD creates an HTML file, then I use XSLT to transform it to either XSL:FO (formatting objects) or typesetter markup, and make a PDF. Both build the front matter and TOC for me. If I was made of money, I could use PrinceXML or Antenna House software to format the HTML and not have to maintain the scripts. :-P

That's pretty much it. I have some technical chops, yeah, but I'll say this: once you learn XSLT, you can do pretty much anything with a well-formed HTML file. XSL:FO is powerful, but it's teeeeeeeeeedious.

Listerene wrote:

Still irritates me that the OS with 85% of the market continues to get
the short end of the stick in their development. A look at their changes
reminds me that just about *every* text processing software has had
these "improvements" for quite awhile.

LOL, I think this is the one of two forums on the Internet where MS users complain about feeling left out! (The other being Jekyll, and that works on W once you install Ruby.) Now you know how Mac users feel about nearly every other kind of software. All too often, if it exists on MacOS, it's nobbled in annoying ways (see MS Office).

I don't know why, but Macs have always gotten most of the attention when it comes to outliners, PIMs, and other CRIMP-ish software. I remember >20 years ago (I think it was 1993), I was using a W3.1 box at work & found a free to-do list manager for it. I thought it was pretty cool back then. Outliners with checkbox entries are far more versatile, though.

Very cool! I'm impressed by the technical workflow! and the blog, as it happens, being a major reader of fantasy/sci-fi myself (not yet an author, but maybe one day...)

Thank you, Larry. Very interesting workflow. It sounds like a Scrivener-based version of LaTeX, without the pain involved in learning LaTeX...

Chiming in from a developer perspective here.

@Hugh:

Why did Keith start on the Mac, not Windows? The arguments have been rehearsed on this forum previously. But if I remember correctly Keith has written that the Mac developing environment was simply more encouraging. In particular, the “frameworks and tools” that he needed (I take it this means “off-the-shelf pieces of code”) were available for OSX (now macOS) at little or no cost, and they simply weren’t available at all for Windows. He’d have had to code them himself, and that would have taken far longer.

It's not like there is much copy & paste code for macOS development; I'd argue that programming for the "Windows API" throughout the 2000s was far more rewarding in terms of copy-pasteable code. Because everyone has a Windows machine, obviously. It's just that the environment is so much nicer for programmers to think in and design with. Apple's developer tools (the code editor etc) always were very good, clean, and user friendly. Coding Windows apps before .NET was a lot of hassle. It's the same as with aesthetics and user interface differences between Mac and Windows, only showing in the internals, too. I develop Mac apps, and I think I'll have to abandon ship one day to create software for more open platforms for ethical reasons, but I'm severely going to miss how developing for the Mac feels.

You probably also know the rumors that Mac users tend to spend far more money on indie apps; the culture of buying online was predominant because there was virtually no boxed software to buy in stores. Crapware like WinZIP bundled with Yahoo! toolbars etc. never became that popular, either. It was (and is) nice being part of this, even though there were (and still are) so many more potential customers on Windows.

Another programmer here. OSX software was terrible for development and the restrictions were high compared to windows until around Yosemite/2010. I would say that the first OSX you could really use for writing software was 10.5 (after MacOS 7.5 totally lost the technology war against Win95 in 1995).

Microsoft now lost after almost 10 years of a total confusing strategy of constant creation and abandoning of so many short living technologies for desktop development. Today they are stuck because they don't wont do anything that could encourage people to continue using Windows 7 and the insane restrictions that sandboxed Universal Window Apps have.

Lothar Scholz wrote:

Microsoft don't wont
do anything that could encourage people to continue using Windows 7

Yet almost everything I read about Windows 8, RT, 10 encouraged me to stick with Win7...

Lothar Scholz wrote:

Today they are stuck because they don't wont
do anything that could encourage people to continue using Windows 7

My impression is: They want people to move over to Windows 10 and not stick with oder version.

Dr Andus wrote:

Yet almost everything I read about Windows 8, RT, 10 encouraged me to stick with Win7...

I moved to Windows 10 just before the end of the free upgrade. Works like a charm and I wouldn't go back to anything else.

Pierre Paul Landry
IQ Designer
http://www.infoqube.biz

Same here. I've found Windows 10 to be pretty stable -- having used it since day one of its release -- Windows 7 was fine also -- the transition from 7 to 10 was seamless.

Pierre Paul Landry wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>Yet almost everything I read about Windows 8, RT, 10 encouraged me to
stick with Win7...

I moved to Windows 10 just before the end of the free upgrade. Works
like a charm and I wouldn't go back to anything else.

Pierre Paul Landry
IQ Designer
http://www.infoqube.biz

Windows 10 is okay. Windows 8 was unacceptable, and was the single most significant reason for our decision to transition our entire business to Mac (apart from a couple of servers, that is). But Windows 10 isn't too bad (although the remains of legacy Windows in there do drive me nuts!)

MadaboutDana wrote:

Windows 10 isn't too bad (although the remains of legacy Windows in there do drive me nuts!)

It's the remains of legacy Windows in there that make Windows 10 a viable operating system for most Windows users.

xtabber wrote:

It's the remains of legacy Windows in there that make Windows 10 a viable operating system for most Windows users.

I'll agree that the Windows Store doesn't have a great selection of apps.
However, Windows 10 desktop is not a "legacy" OS but is a great environment, with great apps, and innovative hardware (Surface et al, tablets, 2 in 1, etc.)
And of course, there is Touch and Ink, both of which I would not live without.

Pierre

MadaboutDana wrote:

Windows 10 is okay. Windows 8 was unacceptable, and was the single most
significant reason for our decision to transition our entire business to
Mac (apart from a couple of servers, that is). But Windows 10 isn't too
bad (although the remains of legacy Windows in there do drive me nuts!)

Seems abrupt. Why not just stick with Windows 7, as many businesses did? I imagine there's "legacy" in every operating system.

@bob

It's a good question. The answer is that with Windows 8, Microsoft really did seem to have lost the plot. They appeared to me, an inveterate ICT industry watcher, to have panicked and put all their money on an operating system for all platforms, which was consequently an outrageous kludge. Unlike most businesses, we've never hung on to an earlier version of an operating system because it "just worked", not least due to the inevitable security considerations - we didn't want to find ourselves in a Windows XP situation further down the road. So my primary concern (apart from training) was strategic: just where was Microsoft going, did their vision convince me, and did I regard their strategy as sustainable? And the answers to these questions (3.5 years ago) were: dunno, no, and no.

Furthermore, I'd been watching macOS very carefully, and had been impressed by the very careful, incremental approach taken to that operating system. I've experimented with Linux, but as a mainstream business OS for a company like ours, which needs to use tools/accept files that are generally optimised for/exclusive to Windows, Linux simply doesn't hack it, especially when you've got staff training to consider. On the other hand, our staff all took to Mac like ducks to water, despite the obvious differences with Windows - I was actually very surprised by how little training we had to do.

And my anxiety was, to an extent, born out. It's taken Microsoft about 2.5 years to remedy the Windows 8 ghastliness, resulting in...

@pierre

I agree, on the whole, Pierre - I like Windows 10. It's lighter, faster and much better designed than Windows 8, and the Microsoft vision does appear, on the whole, to have worked reasonably well (although I'd still argue it's a peculiar compromise between the touchscreen- and mouse-driven user experience). And the legacy aspects are very much in the background, where only sysadmins are likely to find them (or want to find them!).

But Microsoft still makes me nervous, because they bob about so much (pace @bob). There are rumours that the Surface line is about to be scrapped (making too much of a loss), and you of all people will be aware of the way Microsoft's programming approach has veered wildly around over the last few years, causing many people who'd invested heavily in one or the other of their purportedly favoured programming languages to give up in disgust. Indeed, I'd argue that Microsoft's indecisiveness helped Apple at various crucial junctures, but IANAP, so I can't be sure of that.