"Macromedia Fontographer 4.1" vs. "FontLab 4.6"

msbazman

unread,

Jun 13, 2004, 6:40:40 PM6/13/04

to

Hi!
Can someone explain me the differences between "Macromedia Fontographer 4.1"
and "FontLab 4.6". What I know is, that the version of Fontographer is not very
new and I don't understand why Macromedia don't make a new version. Or is this
software so perfect and don't need an update. I don't think so. Can someone
give me more technical informations about these two programs. I purchased the
"Macromedia Fontographer 4.1" last week and I think about the "FontLab 4.6",
because it is a new product.

Juhani L.

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 2:43:31 AM6/14/04

to

msbazman wrote:

Fontographer is fine tool, if you are creating PostScript fonts for normal Western European (Latin1 or MacRoman) languages of some kind of symbol set. It's OK also for creating TrueType fonts, if you don't mind about not-so-perfect hinting on small screen sizes. You can use it for creating non-Western European fonts, if you know its limits and are willing learn some tricks.

Fontographer is easier to learn and editing tools are not so confusing as in FontLab. It has also a decent printed manual, which costs extra 40 USD for FontLab (really silly!).

Fontographer run best on older computers and operating systems, quite opposite to FontLab, which requires a lot of memory and a fast machine.

In all other respects, FontLab is newer and better.
If you have bought Fontographer, you can buy FontLab upgrade for 299 USD. Then you can use both :) Even better, if you are familiar with Linux or X11 on Mac OS X, you can use also Georg Williams' free FontForge (http://fontforge.sourceforge.net).

Juhani

Armadillo

unread,

Jun 16, 2004, 4:12:31 PM6/16/04

to

> Fontographer is easier to learn and editing tools are not so confusing as
in FontLab. It has also a decent printed manual, which costs extra 40 USD
for FontLab (really silly!).

You can download a free FontLab manual in Pdf format even if you do not buy
a license. Personally I regard printed manuals as dead trees and they should
be even more expensive.

Jukka

Juhani Lehtiranta

unread,

Jun 17, 2004, 2:21:54 PM6/17/04

to

Armadillo wrote:

> Personally I regard printed manuals as dead trees and they should be
> even more expensive.

I'm so lazy, that I don't mind to print hundreds of pages and bind, stable or map them. Of course a printed manual is a dead tree: tree => pulp => paper :)

Juhani

Armadillo

unread,

Jun 18, 2004, 10:54:37 AM6/18/04

to

> I'm so lazy, that I don't mind to print hundreds of pages and bind, stable
or map them. Of course a printed manual is a dead tree: tree => pulp =>
paper :)

Why print? Usually one has just to look up a thing or two. I just threw away
dozens of old manuals I had not opened once. In learning to use new software
trial and error is way more effective than reading the manual.

Pdf has one advantage over printed manual. Since most manuals have extremely
poor index and table of contents it is easier to find something with search
function.

Jukka

kadugu

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 8:56:26 PM7/13/04

to

What is the ideal value for Em square. The sum of Ascent and Desent? Or
something higher than Ascent? How does changing the value of Em square
affect the size of the font?

Kadugu