ArcGIS Pro: Most Cumbersome

28390
87
07-10-2018 07:18 AM
KelseyKatro
New Contributor II

Who designed ArcGIS Pro? 

It is absolutely the most cumbersome piece of software I have ever used!

It is so poorly designed compared to ArcMap, which is awesome. QGIS is not as difficult as ArcGIS Pro.

I have a strong feeling, if something is not done to correct this piece of shist, it will go the way of the dodo!!!!

It has such a huge learning curve and poor functionality I am sure most will reject it and you will need to keep making ArcMap. 

The whole Microsoft toolbar approach is absurd. It may work on small programs such as Word or Excel, but using it on software as complex as ArcGIS Pro........not a chance for success. My work takes twice as long to do with Pro and I am sure this feeling is not mutually exclusive.

Give me ArcMap or Give me Death!!!!

Tags (2)
87 Replies
KelseyKatro
New Contributor II

LOL

VladimirStojanovic
New Contributor III

Absolutely the thing you get to look at the most if you are using ArcPro to do anything in GIS. Well done L R, right to the point!

TylerSchwartz2
Occasional Contributor II

Good one!  Sad but true

CalebAnderson1
New Contributor III

TOO GOOD!!! 

Ajbooter
New Contributor

This is still the case most of the time as far as my experience has proven to be.

0 Kudos
AndrewQuee
Occasional Contributor III

We're evaluating Pro as a possible future case as we begin plans to migrate our MOTS platform from 10.3.1 to 10.6.

What I've found it that it's very much the same as going from say, Office 97 to the more modern ribbon system, or from Windows 7 to Windows 10.  They do do pretty the exact same thing, but in their own way.  "Same, same, but different."

I will admit that some colourful language has eventuated (it seems Pro wants you to track a process path, not give you the whole shebang in litter of toolbars and buttons, and who thought it would be a good idea to bury the explore tool so you can't navigate once a tool is active?) but as with the new Office and Windows once you get used to how it works, it actually makes more sense and is more intuitive and easy to learn.

We're recommending to clients thinking about taking up GIS that unless they need functionality in Desktop right now, they should consider starting with Pro so they're only learning one system, not two.

The one lining here is that Esri is taking on board comments and suggestions for improvements as Pro evolve.  Good luck getting anything major changed in Desktop, it's pretty much set in stone now.  Some ArcGIS Ideas have been kicking around for 10+ years in one form or another.

Knut_SindreVale
New Contributor

I think ArcGIS pro has become easier to use for the light GIS users, and it will develop over time to become the next generation of GIS programs. I think the traditional use of GIS will change and we have to think new ways to get things done. Lets say you have never used Arcmap or ArcGIS pro before, which program would you use? Data Storage and management will be cloud based and online programs such as arcgis online will make ArcGIS desktop and server redundant. I also think this will lead to a lot more competition for ESRI. New generations of GIS users will look at Arcmap and see an old rusty car. Over time  

by Anonymous User
Not applicable

I had some serious problems with ArcGIS Pro performance when I first started using it.

After quite some time with the support end we found the causes.

ArcGIS Pro needs to be run from new GDB's, and GDB's only.

It is extremely troublesome to implement ArcGIS Pro if that software alone will force us into changing workflows far outside GIS-related projects. Therefore I have paused our companys implementation of ArcGIS Pro, which is a shame since:

   Run from the correct environment ArcGIS Pro has outstanding performance. It's fast in order of execution, its fast to work with. Tools and processes are coupled really logical, and feature editing is a breeze.

But, only if you obey the environment setup strictly, even minor faults will kill performance entirely.

MichaelVolz
Esteemed Contributor

Mathias:

I am interested in why you say Pro needs to be run from new GDBs.  Can you cite some specific examples of why you think this is a requirement, as that would create an enormous amount of work for enterprise organizations?

Do these gdbs need to be full-blown ESRI gdbs such as SDE gdbs and file gdbs or can they be relational dbs that are just spatially enabled with ST_Geometry (Oracle) libraries and make use of query layers when using the data in Pro?

I edited my post to say "new" GDBs and not just GDBs.  My hope was that the import map tool would do the bulk of the work of creating aprxs from existing mxds.  Have you had performance problems with this workflow where you had to resource the data to new gdbs after the import process?

0 Kudos
by Anonymous User
Not applicable

I don't know the specific reasons, but guess that non-database data needs to be added entirely to the ram and looked up anytime you perform changes such as symbology.

In a database, and I suppose relational databases will do, quite a few lookups can be spared since there will be a single file handling content.