After many years of no maps for 1E and 2E, I switched to requiring maps for 3E, 3.5, and 4E. These last few editions (like Pathfinder) have a lot of rules and class features that convinced me maps were indispensible. In fact, 4E probably has a greater reliance on maps than 3E/PF.
Then I ran some playtests of 5E, without maps as per the playtest instructions, and rediscovered the joy of being able to start a combat without saying "Take 5 everyone while I sketch this out..."
Now I'm running a 4E campaign (Mummy's Mask) and for the most part, I'm not using maps for combat. Instead, I'm giving a narrative description of the area and the combatants, and as folks move around, I try to clarify how they're positioned in relation to area features and allies and foes. When there's doubt about where people are and whether they can use class features, I try to err on the side of the PCs. Sometimes I go ahead and use a map for a particularly intricate area - but the further I get, the less often it seems necessary or useful.
There've been some rough spots. None of us are in the habit of describing and visualizing clearly after 10+ years of relying on maps. But the game is also going much faster - I'm completing an Adventure Path chapter in about a month of real time (it took more like 3 months when using maps). Part of the time savings is a smaller group, but a lot of it is the time we save by eliminating the drawing of maps and the counting of squares to plan PC movement or to place spell effects.
And I do still frequently dig out minis (or more often these days, Pawns) to give the visual idea of the foes, and their size relative to the PCs. I just don't orient them on a map.
So I encourage you to give it a go. As long as the GM and players are all willing to help each other and play cooperatively, it can really speed up game play and make the game's story (as opposed to the tactical exercise) much more memorable.