ArcGIS Pro: 2.4.2: In general, ArcPro has less performance than ArcMap,

[JamalNUMAN]

ArcGIS Pro: 2.4.2: In general, ArcPro has less performance than ArcMap,

I observed that the ArcPro has less performance than ArcMap. This observation is related to all tools and behaviors

[DanPatterson_Retired]

seems reasonable...

create new project... has to set it up,

read a folder... ditto...

buffer with no data in the map... probably it is confused...

publishing... I don't do that so who knows

[MarcoBoeringa]

"Sometimes I feel as if I’m working with web App but not desktop!"

I think this remark is not far off the mark... and at least part of the problem.

ArcGIS Pro's UI is in fact build based on Microsoft's Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF: see: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/dotnet/articles/aa663364(v=msdn.10)?redirectedfro...)

which is according to that page:

"They are: a unified platform for modern user interfaces, the ability for developers and designers to work together, and a common technology for Windows and Web browser user interfaces"

As you can see, WPF is at least a shared technology with web browser UI's. I think Microsoft never envisioned or optimized WPF for applications as big and complex as ArcGIS Pro. Even the non-web version of Outlook can be really sluggish if it has to deal with hundreds or thousands of emails in an Inbox.

It is probably only part of the issues, and ESRI definitely has made improvements in some areas in the last few releases (e.g.this partially implemented Idea from myself https://community.esri.com/ideas/15362-arcgis-pro-stop-queuing-senseless-ui-tasks-performance-issue), but I do think it may play a role here.

That said, I don't think ESRI had any other logical choice for a pure Windows desktop application like Pro.

[H__AlexHuskey]

Marco: Then the obvious remedy is to leave Windows behind and embrace Chrome till Microsoft gets their act together. MS is marketing Azure but neglecting to make their huge infrastructure work for customers. It's like the old Mac vs Windows rivalry, but within Microsoft itself!

[GunnarMalek-Madani]

I agree with everything Jamal is saying.  I would also add that doing anything with the field calculator takes a lifetime.  I used to use select by attribute and then use the field calculator to make quick edits to the attribute table. That isn't efficient now.  In Pro the field calculator actually is a geoprocessing tool and it's too slow to be functionally useful. I find myself making lots of manual edits.

Making maps takes twice as long.  Setting up simple layer properties like symbology and labels takes much longer.  Good luck formatting a legend that looks passible in under 10 minutes, and if you make a map series it's impossible to make the legend stay in one spot between pages if you only want it to show data that is present in the map extent.  I make a high volume of the same maps every day and maps that I've made a hundred times with ArcMap now take an hour to make when they used to take a half hour each.  Very frustrating.

[AzizTejan-Jalloh]

I am experiencing the same problem with ArcGIS Pro 2.4.2. I have had to downgrade back to 2.3.2.

If ArcGIS Pro is going to replace ArcGIS Desktop, the reality is that it still needs some significant work as far as performance in a production network infrastructure environment.

I had to revert to ArcCatalog for certain geoprocessing workflows and it was a stop gap solution when Pro 2.4.2 was not working for me.

Thanks,

Aziz

[CStarbirdDudek]

You said it perfectly... feels like working in a web app. Every single interaction in Pro requires a fraction of a second more time than ArcMap, which adds up very quickly to an overall feeling that you're working with an application that has to perform a server request for every click. Very frustrating.

[HamedFarzin1]

I am trailing ArcGIS Pro 2.5 beta, it is loads up and opens tools faster. There are some extra capabilities for Utility Network like you can create Utility Network on a Geodatabase. 

[JamalNUMAN]

I’m happy to tell that the 2.5 beta version proves the validity of this great discussion on the performance. At first glance, I could see that the performance in 2.5 is much better than 2.4

How about your findings guys?

[KoryKramer]

I'm pretty sure Beta 2 is available now.  It includes fixes from Beta 1 so make sure to upgrade.

Glad to hear you're already seeing improvements!

[JohannaKraus2]

I just upgraded (this week) and thought it was to 2.5, but I see it's actually 2.4.2 and Pro says I'm up-to-date:

Do I need to install Pro from somewhere else?