My question is pretty simple - Why?

[PaulJordan]

Why ArcGIS Pro?  I can't find anything to like about this application.  The flat GUI makes everything look like background.  The app crashes with alarming regularity.  The interface is worlds away from that of ArcGIS.  Why?   And as with previous major releases it almost seems that the development team had no contact with the developers of ArcGIS desktop.  One might think that the radical changes are a deliberate attempt to force users into ESRI training programs for a hefty fee.

Bottom line - not at all happy with Pro.

[DouglasGawtry1]

I think it could have been done better... First off it should be in beta until it can do everything that the program it is supposed to replace can do.  I am getting sick of software manufacturers pawning off new versions that don't do what the previous one did.  Second it should have never used the ribbon interface...it wasn't liked by anyone I know of in ms office, so why would it be liked here.  I have been using ESRI software since ArcView GIS 2.0 and it was a relief for me when they went to version 8... this to me is a step backward because it feels like I am using ArcView GIS again when in Pro.  They said that they had to rewrite all of ArcGIS for version 10.1... why not make it 64 bit then?  As for multiple layouts...I didn't use them when they had them before... too unstable.  Also, they will just get rid of them again with the next rewrite and that is where it was messy for most people...doing the many to one conversion.  Since most of the infrastructure I work with is network based and departmental based where there are shared datasets between departments.  It just feels like I need to "set my working directory" multiple times while doing things in Pro.  Going over to Pro will probably require a complete revision to how things are done across all departments where I work... Lucky me, I am responsible for making it all happen smoothly.

Alas, since it has been decided to be the future, I will learn it, and it probably won't be as annoying to use over time.  It just seems so disjointed and clunky right now and doesn't seem even close to a finished product.  Most things that I do take an extra 3-5 clicks over what they did in ArcMap or require me to open ArcMap anyway since the functionality isn't in Pro.

I am using it as a side program right now because right now it doesn't get the job done, but I will be ready when ESRI kills Desktop.  Also, it has already failed as an emergency response program where I work.  I had a bunch of emergency stuff set up through ArcGIS online and with Pro but with networks down...including cellular from a storm, the program that saved the day was good old ArcGIS Desktop with standalone licensing and printing out paper maps since there was no internet.

[Robert_LeClair]

Douglas - I understand where you're coming from as I too am a seasoned Esri user (ArcInfo Workstation 5.0, ArcView 1.0->3.3, ArcGIS for Desktop 8.0->10.4.1 and now ArcGIS Pro) who works for Esri as an Instructor.  Some items to explain the hows/whys of Pro:

• Move ArcMap to 64-bit:  The Developers tried to a few years ago but the programming languages used had long since been deprecated.  Would have been too costly and time consuming to do a 64-bit ArcMap.  Thus they started with a fresh approach using 19 years of ArcMap experience/changes/design to create ArcGIS Pro.
• Ribbon Interface:  Many software companies in addition to Esri (i.e. Autodesk, et.al.) are using the MS ribbon technology for a modern user experience.  I teach the ArcGIS Pro classes and many students find learning Pro intuitive and easier to navigate.  Subjective statements I know but just what I see based on my teaching experiences to date.
• Stability:  ArcGIS Pro is stable on my machine.  A few things you may want to try - determine the make/model of your video card and go to the manufacturers website to download the latest driver.  Windows Update will not do this.  Also run the program - Can your Computer Run ArcGIS Pro - Can You Run It? - to determine if your hardware can run the program for the best user experience.
• ArcGIS Pro vs. ArcMap functional equivalency:  You're right - Pro is not there.  The developers are working very hard to make the next release of Pro - 1.4 - be functionally equivalent to ArcMap.  When ArcMap 8.0 came out, it didn't have the same functionality of ArcView 3.x.  In my opinion, it took until 8.3 for ArcMap to hit its stride.  Pro is similar in this regard.
• Licensing:  Starting at 1.3, you can choose Named User, Single Use, or Concurrent use licensing.  Just like ArcMap's licensing model.  In fact, you can check a Pro license offline when you're not connected to a network.
• Multiple Layouts:  This was one of the top requested Ideas from GeoNet that we reintroduced in Pro.  Many users like this functionality so it all depends on your workflows I suppose.
• ArcMap - will be with us for a long time.  There will be an ArcMap 10.5 and into the future.  For example, our deprecation schedule for ArcMap 10.3 has it's official retirement December 2022 I think.  That means supported until then. 10.5 (who knows if it will go to 10.6 or 11.0) will have ArcMap.  Many federal customers rely upon ArcMap.

Hope this helps explain ArcGIS Pro - feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.

Robert LeClair

Esri-Denver

[curtvprice]

In my opinion, it took until 8.3 for ArcMap to hit its stride.  Pro is similar in this regard.

Old workstation user here. I didn't turn it off until ArcGIS 9.2 came along, the geoprocessing just wasn't all there yet!

I don't think Pro will take that long because this is not the first rodeo for the team guiding Pro's development -- many of them have been through several of Esri's technology changes. A bit unlike ArcGIS 8.0 where I truly got the impression most of the team new to OLE/COM. (It was kind of a crappy platform too, I think WPF is much better!)

[MaribethPrice]

I am systematically working my way through Pro for my book update and there are a few things I do like:

• Multiple maps and layouts. I wrote a paper last summer and had to create a different map doc for every figure, even though it was all the same data being used.  I'd update some annotation in one figure and then have to do it again in another.  I'd zoom into the map in data view to fix something and then have to re-scale it for the figure. 
• I like that Pro creates a geodatabase for the project. With ArcMap, my students were forever saving things in the default geodatabase on the C drive and never finding them again. I used to create "junk" databases to hold intermediate stuff from Spatial Analyst workflows.  Now I just let them save in the project geodatabase
• Love being able to enter an attribute in an edit template and then create features with that attribute value.
• Love that I can keep a tool open and edit it after it finishes, instead of having to reopen and fill the whole thing out again.  Created 4 feature datasets in a geodatabase in under 20 seconds yesterday.
• Neat that the map display units can be set to UTM and automatically adjust for the zone you are in.
• Query builder panel is more intuitive for beginners, although more tedious to operate.  Thank goodness for the SQL view.

My dislike list is still pretty long, mind you, but I expect I will get used to most of them in time.  Except the symbols.  Is it just me or are the default styles ugly, with the ugliest and least useful symbols at the top, so you have to scroll down to find reasonable ones every time?  It was heaven to find you can import the old ArcMap styles.  First thing I do with every new project.

[SteveDavies]

"It was heaven to find you can import the old ArcMap styles"

Yes........ but you can't 'Match symbols in a style', something we do plenty of.  This omission alone makes it a non-starter at present.  And no, its not just you - I too dislike the ribbon toolbars.  I know it's the future.....................but it looks so messy with icons scattered seemingly at random around the top of the screen.

(PRO v1.3 user)

[mrmark]

There are a lot of reasons that ArcGIS Pro looks appealing to me, but its performance it just so terrible it doesn't matter.

I have a project and geodatabase that has a single feature layer of the United States in it (from the Esri data). Selecting Alaska and clicking Scale on the Modify toolbar results in over 30 minutes of high CPU usage, whining fans, etc. before I get the selection box. Scaling it to about 25% of original size results in another 20+ minutes. Finally the scaling is done & I move it. 50 minutes of high CPU usage later it finally finished. 

So - just under 2 hours to scale and move a single polygon. 

Windows 10 Enterprise, 4 Ghz Core i7 with 32 GB of RAM and a graphics card with 4 GB of memory (it drives my 4K display just fine when running Photoshop & Illustrator & even AutoCAD). 

** I spoke too soon. I clicked on the "Finish" button on the Modify toolbar and am up to 15 minutes of it doing something - everything is grayed out and I get the spinning circle by my mouse pointer. 

[JeremyWright]

Mark,

it sounds like you may not be using your GPU (which explains the abysmal performance). 

Please press SHIFT-E with the map view focused. What does it say at the top left?  (should say DX11 or GL3)

Regards,

Jeremy W.

[davidround]

There's a lot of talk here about people being too used to ArcMap. The way I see it that is not the problem. Pro is awful. It's unstable and missing important features. Some of the features that are present are so bad it's ridiculous (who wants to talk legends? The thing is the same could be said about ArcMap. It was falling behind and it was getting to the stage where it would never catch up with Quantum without an entire redesign. Yes the ESRI online stuff is awesome but if you want to do actual GIS then your best bet right now is a free application. Not an excellent state of affairs for ESRI! It's very lucky for them that most organisations won't touch open source with a 10ft barge pole.

At the end of the day though ArcPro is currently in version 1 so what do you expect. It has seen significant improvements in the past couple of years but yes it is still a buggy unfinished mess and absolutely horrible to work with. I can understand why newbies might prefer the style at first glance and I'm sure those of use who were students in the ArcMap years have some stories of utter hatred to tell but believe me the advantage ends there unless you work in 3D which you probably don't. Personally I'm keeping my eye on it. I regularly attempt projects in it (I say attempt because it usually transpires that the feature I need is missing, half baked or broken) and I'll roll it out to the organisation when it's actually ready. Until then we're stuck on the antiquated and always lively ArcMap but make no mistake I can't wait for the day we can finally ditch it in favour of stable 64 bit goodness. 

We just need to get ESRI to listen to their users. This is something I think they've always had trouble with. Please don't forget the basics. GIS is more than pretty pictures. We need a basic suite of reliable software to work with and for the past 2 or 3 years or so I would say you don't have a product. At least not one that I would buy if we weren't so heavily invested. Yes the online stuff is cool. We see that but it's not the be all and end all for your users.

[RupertGonzalez]

I personally like the modern, clean look of ArcGIS Pro.  It has been beautifully styled and is very impressive. From a purely stylistic viewpoint it makes quantum and any other GIS look like windows XP.  It looks like a high powered web design from an elite San Francisco graphics company, a good match to ESRI's beautiful web sites. That is important when selling look and feel to upper management.  

I also like ESRI is willing to make a fresh start.  64-bit is long overdue.   It is good they are finally trying.  But as you write, the actual functionality and reliability of Pro is poor.  It just crashed on me again when I did nothing but open a new project. Not good!

What is worse is that such a big effort went into implementing an architecture that was technologically obsolete before they finished it.  ArcGIS Pro is non-parallel software in an era when modern software is parallel.    It uses GPU as GPU was used 15 years ago, for rendering, not as GPU is used today for massively parallel GPGPU computation.   

Pro is not multi-threaded.  At best it can run a single background geoprocessing thread without locking up the GUI.   That's terrible in an era when people routinely write software that parallelizes tasks to execute on all 16 hypercores of an 8 core CPU. Other companies can do GIS geoprocessing on the desktop using 32 or 64 CPU cores and thousands of GPU cores.  Why not ESRI?  It took ESRI over ten years longer to go 64 bit than smaller GIS companies and open source. Parallel is much harder than 64-bit.  Will it take ESRI 20 years to go parallel as other companies have today?  There are new packages that can do in two or three seconds what Pro takes hours.   To match that Pro will either have to be re-written completely or ESRI will have to buy the new technology from somebody that has it.  

ESRI also needs to make Pro easier to use.   Today it is too hard to do simple tasks that ordinary workflow in GIS requires.  An example:

I read documentation diligently.   I work through all tutorials.   Today, I spent five hours trying different ways to import a shapefile as a layer into ArcGIS Pro.   Five hours!   In real life you meet shapefiles all the time without a .prj that are in lat/lon, WGS 84.    For any other GIS in the world that takes five minutes: import the shapefile and done.  ArcGIS Pro?   It is the most convoluted, opaque process I have ever seen. I read dozens of web pages and blogs and documentation pages.    Finally, I wrote a python script using arcpy.SpatialReference(4326) to specify the projection and build a .prj for the shapefile.   Now when I add the shapefile as a layer it appears with the correct Spatial Reference properties but the extent is wrong and it does not appear in the map.   I'm not asking for advice here.  Sooner or later I will figure it out using published documentation and web searches.   I am just giving an example where if such a simple task is so difficult for a diligent beginner ESRI should consider there may be a basic problem with Pro.   Such things must be made simpler.

I would like to see ESRI be successful with Pro.  They need to be less inbred, to think outside the captive market.   For example, the world uses EPSG, not ESRI factory codes for coordinate systems.  Adding EPSG should be easy.  See what can be done with few clicks, like importing a shapefile, in competitive systems and make sure Pro makes it as easy.   Read/write many different formats.  Buy parallel technology from smaller companies to make Pro go fast.  Loosen up.   A product that had the depth of GIS expertise ESRI has, with the money to style a software experience like ESRI has but built on modern internals and not obsolete stuff, that would be wonderful.

ESRI has a window of opportunity because the open source crowd does not have the organization and discipline to do parallel end user products. Smaller companies with modern technology do not have the money to gain traction against ESRI marketing.    But nothing stops a big company like Oracle or Google from wrapping around a modern, parallel core a collection of hundreds of features, geoprocessing tools, format read/write taken from open source.  And then ESRI will be up against a "quantum" of sorts but sold by a big commercial vendor that does not have the stigma of open source, and that big new quantum will do in seconds what ESRI takes hours.  Any of the big database companies could do that just out of frustration at being held back by backward GIS technology in big data markets that involve location data. They are doing it already when you look at how every new GPU DBMS seems to include spatial visualization capability.  Nothing to laugh at!  ESRI should be first in that game because being second will be game over.

[DrewFlater]

Hi Rupert, thanks for your comment. I'd like to ask further questions and continue this discussion. I appreciate you sharing your experiences with ArcGIS Pro. 

First, you stated 

Rupert Gonzalez wrote:

Pro is not multi-threaded.  At best it can run a single background geoprocessing thread without locking up the GUI.  

This is actually one of the reasons that Pro IS multi-threaded: it's ability to run geoprocessing in a dedicated thread so that other work can be done in the app while a tool is running. While geoprocessing is running you can add and explore map data, set and change symbology or labeling, create map layouts, build a geoprocessing model, work with raster functions, publish content to ArcGIS Online or your Enterprise, and hundreds of other things. 

I think what you're really discussing is that geoprocessing tools cannot run using parallel processing - using multiple cores or processes to break up a task into multiple smaller jobs. At the 2.0 release, ArcGIS Pro has more than 50 Desktop tools that leverage distributed processing to use multiple cores or spawn multiple processes to do parallel processing. The tools range from foundational vector proximity and overlay tools like Buffer, Clip, and Intersect, to raster analysis tools like Viewshed, Zonal Statistics, and Weighted Overlay, and even geostatistical interpolation tools like Empirical Bayesian Kriging. These tools, and many others, leverage the Parallel Processing Factor environment to control their distributed processing. Maybe the tools that you use most cannot be set to run in parallel, if you would describe your workflows it will help us on the development team to prioritize the tools that we rewrite as parallel.

I would also like to point out that the new ArcGIS Enterprise GeoAnalytics capability is available in Pro. GeoAnalytics performs distributed space-time analysis against big data using a server cluster and Spark. This is an incredible new capability of the ArcGIS platform that is closely integrated in Pro, and it's as easy to run GeoAnalytics as another Desktop geoprocessing tool. Here is a demonstration of that.

To summarize this point, more tools' algorithms are being rewritten each release to support parallel processing, so you will see this list continue to grow. The same can be said for leveraging GPU for processing, as has been done for specific Spatial Analyst tools. 

Second, you stated

There are new packages that can do in two or three seconds what Pro takes hours.

If you have examples or some scenario that matches this description, I would be very interested to work with you so I can pass it on to our developers for improvement.

Thanks again for sharing.

~Drew, Esri Geoprocessing development team