QGIS versus ArcMap
The QGIS Project released the latest 2.4 version of their free and open source QGIS geospatial information system software a week or so ago (codename Chugiak). The 2.4 changelog lists a number of new features that indicate the QGIS software is increasing in data analysis and map composing sophistication, i.e., moving beyond its traditional strength as a geospatial data management interface. One new feature that seems especially exciting is the multi-threaded rendering which allows users to continue to interact with the map views while re-rendering of the map is ongoing. Anyway, I've been using QGIS almost exclusively in my own research for the past five years or more -- although I have been preparing final figures and maps using Generic Mapping Tools scripts because of perceived limitations with previous iterations of the Map Compositor functionality in QGIS. However, my place of work and many of my colleagues continue to use the commericial ArcGIS suite of software for GIS and Map preparation tasks and so, out of necessity, I am constantly switching back and forth between the two.
I remain convinced that for many people's workflows, QGIS is a hugely competitive product because it is free and supports a wide range of GIS activities. QGIS functions are only getting more numerous and sophisticated with time.
I thought I would take the 2.4 release of QGIS as an opportunity to ask the Pipedot community if they had any ongoing experience switching from ArcGIS to QGIS or supporting both platforms concurrently? As well, what points of comparison would Pipedot contributors emphasize in considering the QGIS versus ArcMap question? Thanks!
ArcGIS is better organized. The geoprocessing toolbox is well set up, and the search function makes it simple to find what you need quickly even if you don't know where it is. It has more users as well, so when you search for how to do something you're much more likely to find your question already answered. Its the industry standard so pretty much every GIS professional is going to know how to use it. Like I said though, it has its flaws. Its slow. It crashes and freezes way more frequently than any modern program should. This isn't just my install either, everyone I know who uses it feels the same way. Its like an old version of word. Save frequently or risk losing work. The license server bullshit is ridiculous. (I really can't stress enough how much of a pain in the ass that can be. For a program that costs as much as ArcGIS it should be flawless.) It is also absurdly expensive. The base package is expensive, and if you really want to have a fully functioning program you need to have a full license which is really absurdly expensive.
QGIS on the other hand is free, doesn't have that license server overhead, and I feel it is a bit snappier and more responsive than ArcGIS. It also doesn't crash or freeze anywhere near as often. ( I won't say never but I can't think of any time it has crashed on me.) Every new version comes closer and closer to matching ArcGIS in the number of things it can do and its ease of use. 2.2 really took a big leap forward, I think. (I'm still on 2.2, haven't switched to 2.4 yet.) It still isn't organized as well as it could be though. They've got all of the native tools under either raster or vector, which is nice, but they're aren't many native tools. The rest are under processing -> toolbox and then organized by which subprogram they're from (GRASS, SAGA, etc). It would be best if they just put everything under the raster or vector tabs and made which subprogram they're from transparent. That being said, as of 2.2 you no longer have to be able to work with GRASS' absolutely byzantine data model in order to use its tools which is awesome. Its really just how things are organized and documented at this point. If they continue to integrate everything and organize it a bit better they'll really have one hell of a program. I already prefer QGIS over ArcGIS for much of my work.
If you've already got ArcGIS bought and paid for they're is no reason not to run both. QGIS is free, so use it where it works better. If you haven't already paid for ArcGIS, hold off until there is something you're sure you need it to do that you can't do in QGIS. QGIS is really as ready for prime time as ArcGIS at this point and a hell of a lot cheaper to run and setup.
Cheers,
-WW
As a side note, I can login, and I have, but it doesn't seem to recognize that I've logged in on most of the site, which is a pain. I don't know why.