Depends on the nature of OpenType Font you like to build. Heavy feature code & glyph rich OpenType Fonts are easier done with FontLab and cut & paste works great with Illustrator. Since Fontographer developing is dead - its a good practice to use FL.

But if you have an old copy of Fontographer or get a chance to take a cheap one - it should work too. Even every other editor capable to build Type1 Fonts. Use the free Adobe OpenType FDK to build your OpenType Version. For a newbee it`s the hard way, but you will learn more.

If you work on Windows, you can take advantage of two free tools from Microsoft: the Font Validator, which is very helpful at catching problems with fonts, and VOLT, which adds OT features to TT fonts. VOLT can do a few things with OT that Fontlab and the Adobe FDK can't. If you are planning fonts with large character sets (i.e., for multilingual use), be aware that current versions of Word can access only 256 characters in a T1 or CFF-flavored OT font. I don't know if this has been fixed in the new version of Office that is currently available in beta. Fontlab also has _much_ better Unicode support than Fog, which is important if you want to support languages other than English and other western European ones. FL also includes the FontAudit feature, which can help you prevent problems. It's been a long time since I used Fog but I don't recall anything similar.

David

I have recently tried the demo for FontLab. I really like the cut-and-paste from Illustrator. Jim Harrison and I are of the same opinion about it's "yucky interface". But it seems to have a good community backing it. Which I am sure being a newbie I will need to take advantage of numerous times. While I usually get a bad vibe from bad UI judging from the demo I can deal with what I've seen.

Mac OS is probably most near and dear to me. But not OSX yet. Most of my Mac contact is at my fulltime job. I have a really good XP system at home which is where I will probably do most of my development and design in Illustrator. And I like FL tool set much better than FOG.

So I am leaning toward purchasing the PC FontLab for those reasons. But I will want to provide my type for both platforms. Thus my heavy interest in OpenType.

Couple more questions:

1) Is FL now more predominant than FOG in the Type Design community?

2) Has anyone developed Mac fonts on a PC FL and experienced any problems?

Fog is almost dead, and the last version dating back 1996, in fact a lifting of the 1994 one. No support of XP or X. no support of OT, etc. (the list is too long).

Make the conclusion you want!

Much of the opinions given on this subject here and elsewhere appear to focus on interface issues. It seems that those who are used to FOG find FLab an uphill struggle as they come to terms with a new interface and ways of working.

I believe it to be primarily a case of people being comfortable with what they are used to - just as many of us will find alternatives to Photoshop bizarre to deal with, and indeed how PC users feel initially when they move to Mac (or the other way round of course).

Thats not to say that FLabs interface does not need improvement, but it is hardly suprising that a package with so many more advanced technical features than FOG will suffer in comparison to its rival. The important thing to remember here is that FLab is a developing package and will get better. Can anyone claim this of FOG?

Go with FLab, dont get intimidated by the interface, and invest in the future. There is little point learning FOG anymore. OpenType forever!

I've always found FontLab far too much like hard work - just a yucky interface. If you have used FOG in the past, then probably you should stick with it. If you really are going to make OpenType fonts - then the only choice is FontLab, as fully integrated tool.

As to platform, use what you feel more comfortable with. My recollection is that the advantage of MacOS is that it's more tolerant of loading and unloading fonts - so that they don't get cached (useful when trying to debug a font). But that may not apply any longer with later versions of Windows and MacOS X.

Take a look at www.supportandmore.com some info about FOG going forward.

If you plan to use Mac OS X, FontLab is the way to go as
Fontographer (FOG) for Mac works only with Mac OS 9.
(Not sure if FOG works with latest versions of Windows.)

If you want to buy software from a developer committed to
developing the app, go with FontLab.

The new support offering from Support and More is
promising, but it doesn't represent a commitment to
enhancing the app itself.

That said, Fontographer will be cheaper to acquire and
there are lots of savvy, helpful users and good tutorials
around.

But, if you're going to start out and learn something,
why not invest in learning something that has a more
predictable future (i.e. FontLab)?

Earlier I said that FOG only works with OS 9 on the Mac.
That's not totally true, as it will work in Classic mode under
OS X, but as others have noted, there are bugs with this
method that make it less than ideal.

Let us know what you decide.