Simple reason to avoid ArcGIS Pro-

[TheoFaull]

It's too slow.

The system requirements are too high. The program installed for me (just!) but using it is a jumpy, laggy experience. For geospatial analysis and editing, you need something quick and snappy. Pro (1.4.1) just isn't that.

I'm not in a position in my office to request having more RAM, a new CPU, graphics card etc. so I'm stuck.

I've change all the display options for best performance and it's still too slow. Here is my Shift+E readout:

Pro needs moire customising options relating to performance vs quality (one example off the top of my head: remove the glowing outline fade after editing a shape. Instead just have it change instantly.)

ArcMap 10.4 runs fine, using the exact same datasets. Other software runs fine.

I get that ESRI are going for a more flashy and graphical interface, but at the cost of slower performance? That shouldn't be the case...

My specs:

Windows 7:

[jaybohac1]

That link pretty much sums up the problem right there.

[DanPatterson_Retired]

don't forget, no one is required to use Pro if arcmap is working fine.  My reading on this whole Pro thing, is that it is a free offering... a taste of things to come, with no requirement to commit or even use at the present.  ArcMap is going to be around for a while

http://support.esri.com/Products/Desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-5#product-support

as well as Pro

http://support.esri.com/Products/Desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcgis-pro/1-4-1#product-support

in fact some Pro versions are already retired.

If arcmap is working fine for your purposes, what is offered in Pro that you need, should be the question. 

[Robert_LeClair]

Theo - to add to the discussion - you may want to run the "Can I Run it?" to see where your machine lacks, meets, or exceeds hardware recommendations.  This will provide information on what hardware specs to request when you upgrade your hardware in the future.  Like Dan mentioned, if ArcMap meets your needs, you can use ArcMap.  It will be around for many years to come.

[EvertGarcia]

I agree with George. Your machine is severely bottle necked with  4 GB of ram and no GPU. Regular ArcGIS for desktop was meant to run in a 32-bit environment. Pro is runs in 64 bit and will take advantage of more processing power. I would think that even the updated GUI in Pro allows it to consume more ram. It's a pretty common story in the evolution of software, for example, Word 2016 needs more resources to run than Word 2010 did. 

[RonaldLindquist]

I just took on responsibility for local GIS applications for my municipality.  After trying to run on a 4GB laptop, I upgraded to a HP laptop with 16GB ram and 500GB solid state HD under Win10 Pro (64 bit).  All the difference in the world.  Was even able to get about 90% successful file/program transfer using Laplink PCMover.

[TheoFaull]

Out of curiosity, what model HP laptop did you get?

Lindy2017‌

[RonaldLindquist]

I have an HP ZBook 15u G4

Ron

[TheoFaull]

Thanks, that is an impressive laptop!

[JinhoKang]

Unfortunately, your hardware specs are below the Esri's recommended requirements.

ArcGIS Pro 1.4 system requirements—ArcGIS Pro | ArcGIS Desktop 

I'm running the latest 1.4.1 at home and it runs smooth; 

Intel i7 5820K 6 Core 3.3GHz

32GB RAM

512GB SSD

Radeon R9 290 / 4GB RAM

I would recommend using Pro if the hardware specs meet the Esri's recommended requirements.

[TheoFaull]

Thanks all for the responses. Glad to get this discussion up and running.

Looks like IT will have to allocate more resources towards GIS, and at home I'll need to invest in a new computer!

Theo