ARCView 2 vs. GRASS -- opinions?

[Jim Klein]

9??95?10?02?18?am at bnr.ca>
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: grassu-list at max.cecer.army.mil
newsgroups: info.grass.user
originator: daemon at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu


We use Grass4.1 ArcCAD and ArcView2 which accomplishes most of what we 
need to do.  However, I was originally informed by ESRI that ArcView 
would be a good way to pull all these things together (vector and 
raster).  Unfortunately, it is pretty difficult to export a grass raster 
image into arcview (basically you can't.)  -- you have export the grass 
raster file as an image file that is readible by ArcView and then 
register it with your arcview data.  -- 


If you do a lot of raster type analyses, then Grass is a fine way to go.  
If you are looking to make pretty maps for reports, then you need 
something different, such as ArcView 2.1

> 
>     > >     I heard recently from a colleague about ARCView 2. From her
>     description, it seems like a viable option as a low-cost (approx $400
>     US per seat) GIS.  I don't know a whole lot about it, though.  Does
>     anyone have any feelings about this package, especially how its
>     capabilities compare to GRASS?  Are they competitors or do they
>     complement each other?
> 
>     Thanks....
> 
>     Tim G.
> 

Jim Klein
lkla at netcom.com