• No extra charge, as usually included in the plotter range of functions
• Easy to install
• Freely copiable, as not protected with a dongle

• Can often only be driven over a parallel (LPT) port
• Cutting length limited to the internal plotter framesize
• Often no birectional communication possible, i.e. the vinyl width cannot be read back
• No job segmentation possible
• Additional cutting plotter functions cannot be addressed (e.g. pouncing or half-cut)
• Cutting plotter optical recognition system cannot be used (e.g. Summa OPOS)

Conclusion:
The driver limitations are mainly due to the fact that they are intended for use with special plotters and cannot exploit the full range of potential plotter functions.

• Macros make it easier for inexperienced users to work with the host program
• If the user is familiar with the host program, it does not take long to learn to use the plugin
• Host program is specially tailored to sign-making requirements
• Experienced users can also carry out sign-making jobs faster and more efficiently using the host program
• Cutting plugins such as CoCut Professional can make the host program into an almost full-range alternative sign program
• Unlike the driver, which can only run a special family of plotters, cutting plugins have their own drivers for all the common plotters on the market from different manufacturers

• Sign tools are design macros. The cutting possibilities are just as limited as with the driver, as they do not extend the possibilities of the driver itself.
• Cutting plugins cannot be used so universally and powerfully on the output side as sign programs (e.g. special requirements for routing, engraving and cutting)

 
 
Conclusion:
The higher price of plugins compared with drivers is therefore justified because only plugins make it possible to perform sign-making jobs efficiently and using the full range of functions.

• It is leaner and therefore cheaper than a sign program, which often includes functions that not everyone needs.
• It is possible to update to the highest version of a sign program at any time. It is not necessary for the user to learn a new mode of working as the user interface and many of the tools are familiar.

• Unlike the plugin, the bridge program is not integrated into the menu structure of another program, i.e. the user has to operate two programs.
• Unlike the sign program, the bridge program often lacks elementary tools (such as a text editor) which make it possible to work without using another program.

Conclusion:
A bridge program is a lean sign program in a positive sense. It has a large number of tools needed for working professionally at prices which beginners can also afford.

• One user interface for all sign-making jobs
• An almost unlimited number of special functions and tools for the most demanding sign-making jobs
• Makes it possible to drive a large number of cutting plotters, routing and engraving machines
• An enhanced version with special modules permits a high degree of flexibility and customization to the requirements of individual companies
• Sign programs often include aids for financial, mathematical and organisational tasks, e.g. job calculation, job manager.
• They are designed in such a way that they can also be used in large and medium-sized companies. Here we should mention multi-user licenses, networking capacity and plot servers.

• The complexity of the program means that it takes a considerable time to learn to work with it.
• Relatively high price compared with the plugin

 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion:
Sign programs are still up-to-date because they were from the start developed so as to serve the sign-maker efficiently. They also implement exceptional functions only usable by a small number of companies.