That would be nice, yes, although for me it would involve a (re)learning curve 
I’ve found myself longing for the “open in external editor” option so temptingly available in the Research folder-- then Scrivener could just hand off the file and not have to turn itself inside out with various editor bindings…
Sorry the conversation has devolved into UNIX. But when you mention bloatware, alas, you invite us techno geeks in 
and emacs is a bloated UNIX editor-- or was, at one time, an editor…
Back to the subject of bloat,
There are a few objective measures of bloat, and for me that comes back to the ability of the developer(s) to maintain the system. I may be offended by the presence of a feature I don’t use even if it never gets in my way. That’s subjective. If the mere presence of multiple features causes an out-of-memory crash in a generously provisioned system, that’s bloat. If the developers can’t keep up with the maintenance queue, and bugs get more numerous rather than fewer, that’s bloat. If my favourite feature gets deleted in removing bloat, I may be disappointed. Oh, well.
And remember, last decade’s bloat is today’s lean app.
Wait until you see what the system will be capable of doing for MMD and other various forms of plain-text writing. They needn’t in fact have anything to do with the formatting of text, in or beyond the editor. As with many features in Scrivener, multipurpose functions are a way of doing more with less bloat (to stay on topic).
Granted most people will use them to make their font different or whatever, and maybe that will tempt some people into just reverting back into old WYSIWYG working habits, I don’t know—but functionally we’ve always had a very similar system in Presets. At least in terms of the UI inviting one to use them “incorrectly”. For example default presets ship with title and heading formats among them—in a writing system that turns your outline into functional document structure. I don’t think calling the feature something else but basically presenting it in an identical fashion on the surface will make a huge difference in “mis-”usage of the software.
Styles for me will replace a labyrinth of regular expression-based Replacements, some post-compile scripting and other downright hacks of the feature set (like using inline annotations for syntax injection instead of… comments). It might be a new feature, and thus one more tick in the toward-bloatness quotient of the software, but in terms of usage, the workflow itself is less bloated, and isn’t that what really matters?
Inline annotations for syntax injection . . . why didn’t I think of that?
I’m wondering, philosophically speaking of course, could one argue that bloat, due to its relative nature, isn’t… really… any…thing…?
Nah, it’s a pejorative term for software that annoys the speaker by its large and increasing feature set, or in my case, perceived level of bugginess that doesn’t get smaller while the feature set gets larger. As such, it’s no more precise than than any other such term. When L&L say they want to avoid bloat, I suspect it’s that they’re avoiding including every user request as rightly they should to keep their product design focused to what they want to sell and support…
I mean, no one wants to try to make a living off OpenOffice…
So bloat-free is a euphemism for ‘we don’t listen to everyone’?
Oh boy — bring dat styling bloat baby ON!!! 
No. Listen is one thing, doing is something completely different.
Besides, not every user has wishes or demands new features. Some of us just happily use the software and focus on using it instead of procrastinating by trying to come up with requests for things the software currently can’t do.
Are they required to listen to ridiculous requests? If I say that I want Scrivener to have the capability to display all formats of ebooks that I might want to import into the Research folder, and L&L decides not to incorporate it, are they ignoring my desires, or did they realize that my request is silly? They can make whatever program they want, without any input from us. Just the fact that they actually do give us a voice and consider options that we suggest should indicate that they are not the type of company that ignores its users.
Bloat is stuff that slows down the user experience, either by negatively affecting the machine’s performance or by insinuating so many extraneous features that the user is unable to work as quickly for having to fight their way through the quagmire of menus and options.
This is me to a ‘T’. I’m still on 1.8.6 because it does what I need it to do. Honestly, I’d be perfectly happy to continue using it until I stop my writing career, unless something completely earth-changing is introduced into a future version. With the updates that have been put out so far, though, the earth hasn’t changed for me. None of the new “features” improve on my own process, so they’re really examples of updates for the sake of updating.
I’m sure that when 3.0 comes out, though, I’ll probably be blown away and take another plunge.
Agreed, but I’d add that that fundamental design standard is a reflection of their overall product standard. KB and company have been consistently clear on this, without contradiction :
literatureandlatte.com/about.php
That’s what I bought and hope will never change.
Hang on a second. You do want certain features WinScriv is lacking. You’ve said so yourself.
Yes, there are things I’ve said I want. Those things haven’t been integrated yet, so the statement you quoted is valid in regards to my personal experience. The features that have been added to WinScriv in the versions since the one I use now are not anything that I need. The things that I want aren’t necessary to my workflow, and if Winscriv development stopped right now, I wouldn’t lose any sleep and would happily continue writing with the version I have now. Additionally, since what I want are either going to be incorporated because of increasing parity with MacScriv or will never be added because of Keith’s vision for the program, then there’s not really much that I have to complain about.
Edit: After re-reading your post, I’m curious what you’re referring to when you say that I’ve said myself what features WinScriv is lacking. Are you conflating this issue with my annoyance about Apple products (which I HAVE said do not do what I want them to do)? As far back as I can recall, the things that I’ve asked/wished to be included in Scrivener are things that are already on the docket or never will be (in the case of timelines, which is easily solved by using Aeon).
I guess even after all that has been said, I still don’t know if I should just switch back to Microsoft Word now that I can buy a computer that can actually handle it, bloated in all its fatness and glory. 
I probably should spend less time worrying about the software I write with and more time actually writing! But that’s for a discussion another day.
I do think that if Keith is going to advertise a bloat free product, there should be a disclaimer about the complexity of the word ‘bloat’ and what such idea entails to the user, both positively and negatively. The matter is complex, and seems to strike a strong chord with many (as this discussion clearly elucidates).
The Proof of God feature bug was what occurred to me:
Not trying to cross-examine you, btw. I was just struck by the seeming difference between your enthusiasm for new features on that thread and your more zen-like indifference toward new features on this one.
There is a difference between “must have” and “nice to have”…there’s a lot of feature parity with the Mac version I personally will be very happy to start taking advantage of, while still liking Scrivener for Windows for what it is today and it being “good enough.”
Ah, yes, I got a little carried away on that one, didn’t I? Again, though, I was merely waiting for it, not complaining that it wasn’t available. I believe that dual monitor support was something that was eventually supposed to be coming to Scrivener, or maybe it wasn’t something that was ever really intended.
Either way (and especially if the second is true), for a random “bug” to produce an effect unintentionally that gives the user something he or she has been told is coming sometime in the undisclosed future was mind-blowing to me. It was something that I didn’t need, or even expect to see, at the time, but it just happened to fall into my lap. I guess it would be like if people who were waiting patiently for iOS compatibility suddenly were able to sync with their iOS devices while being told they wouldn’t be able to do so for another year.
I try to remain fairly “zen” about most things in regards to Scrivener, since it does as many things perfectly as I can think of. But I also allow myself to be taken over by enthusiasm for the unexpected, as I’m sure will happen when 3.0 is released with things that I never thought of beating me over the head with how useful they are and how wrong I was to never think about wanting them.
Nah, I didn’t think so. It is, as you said, mind-blowing. It actually got me wondering what else might be hidden under the hood … (“Hmm. Maybe if I click on the Inspector button while resting an elbow on the Space key, Snapshot comparison will appear.”)
Hence your handle, eh? That’s fantastic. The Zen of Scrivener (to borrow a phrase) depends, I think, on your workflow. For instance, I’ve read a number of posts by new Scrivener users shrieking with outrage that WinScriv can’t compile to CreateSpace or some such POD outlet. Since I don’t publish to print, I shrug, and think in an alarmingly detached way, “Yeah, I guess I can see why that might be upsetting – to someone else.” On the few times I’ve run into a limitation or had a problem with WinScriv, however, it’s front and center.
Meanwhile, some Scrivener user on the other side of the world may well be peering at his/her screen and thinking, “This long-winded asshole again? ‘WinScriv broke up my imported comments from a Word doc.’ Yawn.”
That is certainly true, for those of you with adult levels of patience and the ability to delay gratification. 