Why does ArcGIS Pro have to be so slow???

91739
262
08-01-2017 11:31 AM
ericmeyers1
New Contributor III

Why is ArcGIS Pro so slow? To select assets, field calculate, display layers, change symbology... the easiest of tasks that are commonly utilized within ArcMap are a drag on the software.

When will ArcGIS Pro become faster than ArcMap? That will be the day it could replace it as the goto product for GIS professionals.

262 Replies
JohnBrockwell
Occasional Contributor III

How much RAM you got?

Did you perform a Save as... and test new *.aprx.

Did you clear cache?

C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Local\ESRI\Local Caches

0 Kudos
SeanHlousek
Occasional Contributor III

32gb of Ram.

Yes, on clearing the cache and saving-as.

I experienced the same behavior.

Sean

MichaelHewitt
Occasional Contributor

16 GB of RAM (as I say above minimum specs). 

As a general rule, I clear my cache often and at the first sign of trouble (didn't mention that, sorry).  

I started a new project APRX and copied over my table of contents from the old APRX.  It seems to be opening quicker and acting better.  Not freezing up *knock on wood*.  

0 Kudos
RTPL_AU
Occasional Contributor

It has been interesting following this story; both the users' comments and then Esri representatives' responses.
My opinion is that everyone needs to take a step back and look at what is going on. The very last question and answer indicates to me that, as stereotypical problem solvers, we all love to dive into scenarios and details but in many cases forget to address the easier to define issues with Pro that Esri clearly skirts around.
A good example is number of clicks to perform a task. Being worse off than in ArcMap/Catalog has nothing to do with RAM or CPU. Having a slow rendering GUI then escalates this issue further but makes it harder to define the problem and brings specs into the mix as the easy fall-guy.
There are many metrics like this that show the understanding of UX & UI is lacking at Esri. 
If they start owning that aspect and stop relying on paying customers to bring basic design concept flaws to their attention it will reduce the amount of noise in their case books; we can then focus on the very real and commercially damaging aspects of data & process based performance issues.

MichaelHewitt
Occasional Contributor

Yeah, they rely a lot on their customers to work out the kinks.  So do a lot of software developers today.  I kind of like that aspect.  It always seems they are fixing issues that people bring up.  I just hate when they seem to have fixed something and another issue arises.  I find that the ESRI community is pretty intuitive and good problem solvers.  I don't like contacting technical support unless I have exhausted that option.  

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

Sean Hlousek‌ any update on your case? Was there a bug from that reproducible performance issue? Did you get an update if your workstation, which meets specs, is supported? 

0 Kudos
SeanHlousek
Occasional Contributor III

Still waiting on IT.

Sometimes these things move on “geologic” time frames in my organization.

Apparently IT is trying to get confirmation that the processor they have picked will work in my current system. They are waiting on whoever/whatever organization is giving them that information. Then I need budget approval and then I’ll get the upgrade.

I did follow up with ESRI on the fact that I ran the CanYounRunIt application on my current system and this time it came back as capable, (though just at spec). I’m not sure why it reported my machine was capable when I ran it again. I’d still like the upgrade so I’m above and beyond spec.

ESRI also reported that they cannot replicate the spinning wheel issue I have so that could be related to the processor in some way as well.

I’ll follow up here with results – but it might be a while yet.

-Sean

0 Kudos
ThomasKreyche
New Contributor

I haven't investigated the cause but I experience Pro as slow.

I use it occasionally and have it set up on a VM in Azure. When I'm not using it, I shut down and deallocate the VM so I'm not getting charged.

I've tried various VMs including some very large ones and it's still slow although the larger ones are better. Using a large VM makes tasks quicker and easier and probably cheaper than waiting on a slower VM.

0 Kudos
JohnBrockwell
Occasional Contributor III

Uggh, Why did I reply to this?

0 Kudos
DuarteCarreira
Occasional Contributor II

Not to start a "ours is better" sub-thread, but actually qgis competitor is arcgis pro, not arcmap. And for a fraction of computer resources. If you want to see multi-threaded gui well done try it out. Also saying it's an arcmap rip off is just not even close. If you'd say it's an arcview 3.x gui rip off it would be arguable.

Also this whole thread illustrates the biased relationship between esri and its customers. People are desperate and keep hearing you should stand on your head to make it suck less...

I think pro is a great idea. I want to be able to work with it. I paid for it after all. Am paying every year.

Bad mouthing other products doesn't improve pro...

Also, yes, qgis is very much rdbms capable. Much, much more capable than anything arc*. It's made to work with postgis though. Not with a proprietary data scheme (even though it can) slapped with an "enterprise" price hike. OTOH arcgis can make an enterprise gdb use native postgis format so it's compatible with all postgis clients, including qgis.

What ever value esri offers I think it's mainly in the full stack they provide to customers. The new desktop component just happens to suck.