Eric's right (as always, of course) that Freeview will improve once analogue can be switched off. So 'wait and see' is an option but I suppose the trouble is, for those souls that can't get both, they won't know in advance whether the improvement will be sufficient or not. I'd hope the powers that be have done their sums and research and get it right.
I actually get quite good freeview andc quite good analogue too. If the analogue signal's good enough then I actually prefer analogue for (IMHO) its better picture quality. Take a look at a scene, for example, where an actor has stubble on his chin, and compare freeview and analogue. You'll find the stubble has often disappeared from the digitised signal. Similarly, a field of grass often looks like a smooth coat of green paint on freeview (even when the image isn't moving). I suspect they may be doing a 'noise reduction' on the signal before digitising it so it compresses better, and the stubble on chin, or individual blades of grass, are mistaken for noise. I now have a widescreen TV however, and most (freeview) channels are broadcast widescreen, so I've got used to the low-detail picture and find it generally acceptable. But only just. Others may disagree (ready, steady, go...!).