> Yes, I guess the fact that Fontographer hasn't really NEEDED to
I beg to differ... Fontographer is no good for anything except creating
Windows and Macintosh PostScript fonts in Roman encoding.
Indeed, Western Type 1 still remains very much in focus, so the application
still is useful, but if you follow the Macromedia support group for
Fontographer, you will notice how much upgrade FOG could use. The vast
number of tech notes which describe how to tweak around obvious FOG bugs is
Fontographer is virtually useless for TrueType fonts, or fonts for languages
other than of Western Europe / USA.
> but remains a major player is a big factor (sort of reminds
> me of Quark).
Well, yes, that's a good comparison. I think of both FOG and Quark as of a
hammer -- simple, robust tool for solving typical tasks. Mostu users don't
need technical sophistication, they need simple, robust, reliable, and
somewhat primitive solutions.
InDesign and FontLab on the other side, are fine tools giving the user
ultimate control and incomparably high quality. But they too have higher
The only difference between InDesign/Quark and FontLab/Fontographer is, that
while both Adobe and Quark have imposing marketing potentials, and much
money from other sources, the FontLab/Macromedia "duell" is more of a
David-Goliath situation. Macromedia simply can afford to throw a bunch of
Fontographer boxes into every second computer store, primarily as a nice
gadget, along with their major stuff (Flash, Dreamweaver, Fireworks,
Director). FontLab has limited resources, and doesn't have a "big uncle".
I generally think, Fontographer has still much better marketing, that's for
sure. Just like McDonald's.
Heeh :) I guess people are going to hate me :> But it wasn't me who has
brought up this topic...