Sure, custom fonts are great. The point is that MOST people will not put in the effort required for custom fonts. A good example is Graf's example - not enough difference to notice for all that effort.
True type fonts give EVERYONE the ability to use cool fonts. Like anything else, it's an extensible sort of thing. Doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles up front - just a gateway to get there.
The list of fonts available is enormous - just as good looking as your example and arguably even better. Coloring can be gradient controlled and "soft" texture mapped/filled. If you go the GL way (eventually) the results can be staggering - shiny metallic and all that stuff. And you can do things with True Type fonts that are just not easy to do with custom bitmapped fonts.
True Type fonts have a very wide range of appeal, not just printing - that should be obvious to anyone who has done any sort of graphics work and had to add some lettering. If you look at the results of some font programs that are available (and the plugins for PSP and PhotoShop) the comments made are merely the result of not realizing what can be done.
Scaling is a non-issue as is rotation. They don't look out of place at all. That's one of those subjective arguments anyway, not factual. I've played with fonts in both DRD and GL and they tend to be easier on the eyes then the examples shown. And EXTREMELY easy to tinker with.
As for being only windows, I don't care. IMO designing for < 5% of the audience is just not the way to approach some problems. That goes back to the argument made about some other stuff - for the effort put into "non windows stuff" what do you get that actually benefits the majority of users? Yeah yeah I hear all the zealots now - emotional, not objective
However, True Type font support code should be readily available in Open Office right?
)
