[GRASSLIST:9026] Re: ArcView vs GRASS

[Michael Barton]

I'd jump in here, but I think the rest of you have said it pretty well. For
making nice maps fairly easily--especially in a business
environment--ArcView is a good choice. For an academic/research environment
I think GRASS is a better choice. It Idrisi is also a good choice for the
latter environment, but only runs on Windows. I'm not sure yet how ArcGIS
9.x fits in. My initial reaction is that ESRI may have hurt the formula that
worked so well in the past. ArcGIS is much more powerful than ArcView, but
it is also considerably more complicated. Making a nice map is not so easy
any more. On the other hand, its installation and licensing (including the
dongle that has to be repurchased each year I'm told) is not unusual for a
large business environment, but it is problematic in an academic/research
environment. 

Michael


__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton



> From: Trevor Wiens <twiens at interbaun.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:23:25 -0700
> To: <cavallini at faunalia.it>
> Cc: <GRASSLIST at baylor.edu>
> Subject: [GRASSLIST:9014] Re: ArcView vs GRASS
> 
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:30:00 +0100
> Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all.
>> During a national conference on Open Source software
>> (http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
>> curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading, between
>> ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material, or
>> experience to share on this?
> 
> I think Rich Shepard's little table is a pretty good summary. I think another
> factor
> that must be included when ERSI drones start pumping out their message is that
> for ArcView to have
> capabilities similar to GRASS, many very expensive add-on modules must be
> purchased. 
> 
> The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is
> easier to use, so
> it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over your software. To
> this, I would suggest
> that the appropriate counter is that if users want Windows integration and
> ease of use, they
> should buy Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more
> powerful than 
> the base ArcView product.
> 
> Historically ESRI gained market dominance primarily through US government
> contracts, not because they had a quality product. Now they have managed to
> become deeply entwined in the University system (in the USA and Canada) so
> people coming out of school don't know anything else. The end result is that
> you have ignorant people making decisions about what to buy and use. A
> software vendor couldn't ask for anything more. I think their presence at a
> supposed FOSS GIS conference is a clear indication that ESRI has seen the
> affect GNU/Linux has had on Microsoft and they are afraid of GRASS, QGIS, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure of the value of countering individuals like this; its like
> arguing with missionaries at your door, although possibly entertaining, it is
> a waste of time. I did find an interesting link however from somebody
> rethinking feature comparisons between different GIS software packages. I'm
> not sure I entirely agree, but it is an interesting idea.
> 
> http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=150
> 
> Unfortunately the author doesn't complete the comparison graphs, but the
> method has merit.
> 
> T
> -- 
> Trevor Wiens 
> twiens at interbaun.com
> 
> The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same
> level of thinking we were at when we created them.
> (Albert Einstein)