Verify your computer's ability to run ArcGIS Pro

[SteveJudge]

Can you please add "Verify your computer's ability to run ArcGIS Pro" to the application so that it can be run on a uad/vdi that is not connected to the Internet ?

We have a number of project users that hot desk and this will quickly tell them if they can successfully use the selected uad/vdi or not.

It is important to note that note all the desk uad/vdi's are the same and some contain a GPU and some do not.

Link to the online page: Verify your computer's ability to run ArcGIS Pro 

[RTPL_AU]

And be able to run this without having an active license in place. 

No use logging into the application,  or transferring / checking out a license if the experience is going to be sub optimal.

Unfortunately @SteveJudge it is pretty much a case of 'if you have to check it is probably not going to go well' 

Are your VDIs' destinations/host sessions locked to the VDI terminal or user? Could you have the hosted desktop tied to the user identity thereby ensure a user has an allocated GPU available to them whichever VDI they use? 

[JeremyWright]

Greetings,

Unfortunately the checker is a web-enabled platform, so offline mode is not supported for it.

BUT, we do have a subset of this functionality built into the app, specifically for the GPU itself.  The diagnostic is built into the Graphics engine itself.

If you open Pro and open a "new global scene" (has to be a 3d view at this time) you will get a "no supported graphics adapter" warning if you don't have a GPU that meets min requirements as reported by the GPU driver.

There's details about this warning here:

https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/3.1/help/mapping/properties/unsupported-graphics-hardware.htm

note this uses a different code path than the web checker, but should give similar diagnostics.

We have considered adding this to 2d views in the past, so I'll bring that up with the team during our next planning sprint.

Regards,

Jeremy W.

[RTPL_AU]

Web software is still just software. 
Some IT departments still want a spec they can print out; allowing a web service full local access is something they get stuck on.

In my experience the spec which will allow Pro to run is vastly different to the spec at which the UI will be responsive and smooth without lag or glitches.  NOTE: I am not talking about spec to run a 50GB intersection between points and polygons in different coordinate systems stored in a SQL db accessed via a VPN.....
Should Esri publish a resource similar to the Steam Hardware Survey along with the performance metrics they collect from the installed instances and curated spec of combinations that don't work per support cases?
Just be more transparent.

Edit:
I've been exceeding the Pro Optimum spec since the day it was launched and I started complaining about performance the day after...

Regards,

Chris

[JeremyWright]

@RTPL_AU the issue you are reporting has to do with UI lag and responsiveness.  In the past, have you reported your concerns to Esri Support so that teams responsible for the UI can troubleshoot these problems?  If you have specific feedback or repro cases, we can ask the teams responsible for these UX evaluate and profile them to determine the cause of the delays.

[RTPL_AU]

@JeremyWright  The official Esri Support response was 'Work slower'. 
I've had a meeting with Kory & Valeria to discuss some of the design direction issues with Pro and I have seen some improvement in some areas. Diving into the weeds on specific topics in Ideas will not direct Esri Inc to an efficiency culture away from the "take over the market and ship at all cost before we list" mentality that I feel it is on now.  

To be somewhat direct and answer your question (and help people searching for similar issues and not finding them): 

Scrolling in Attribute table is slow for even small FGDB/SHP. 
Symbology tab is slow to open when used after a period of not being visible (counts for many UI windows)

Rapidly selecting items in contents and changing their symbology or transparency will see lag in the Contents List. Contents List will often miss selection clicks, particularly when it is only a right click to get to the context menu. It will then open the properties/other of another layer. Seems to be due to wanting to highlight a layer on mouse-over rather than click/select and then getting lost. Also sometimes opens the rename on the wrong layer after a single click. 

I first commented on this on a i7-8700 +1070 (7 years ago) and Support was "your hardware ....." so I've upgraded to various and now have 5975WX, 4090, 256GB RAM, 10GBE, etc. Lag is common on multiple computers, multiple networks, multiple OS (10 & 11, incl Pro for Workstations), Nvidia & AMD.

The fundamental issue, in my opinion, is the use of dynamic context and a dynamic ribbon, with everything trying to predict/follow user actions, while also trying to optimise library caching to match. I'm not a developer but have seen tech debt and momentum in action before. I suspect many issues are due to the underlying framework and cannot be fixed easily.

Add to this the conscious UI/UX bad decision aspects such as:
hiding the layer coordinate system behind a scroll & click in Properties (regression from ArcMap),
not being able to add and set a FGDB as default in one click (regression from ArcMap),
not going back into a Feature Dataset in Browse when adding/changing multiple datasets (regression from ArcMap),
not being able to unselect a selection directly from the layout window (regression from ArcMap),
not being able to clear any/all coordsys & transformations from a map (regression from ArcMap),
not being able to set defaults in Sharing operations,
adding a malicious space in front of a selection from the info popup (regression from ArcMap),
not being able to pin a ribbon menu (regression from ArcMap),
etc, etc. 

They should ban Kool-Aid at Redmond and pivot to efficiency, both electrical and human.   
</end rant> 
Having Esri do its job properly should not require Ideas from paying customers.

[JeremyWright]

Thanks for confirming  - I'm glad that you have engaged with product managers (kory and valeria) on this - I will leave the responses and follow-up to them on the specific topics you mentioned.  We are in pretty regular communication.

For the original poster (@SteveJudge) question - I have answered it I believe, but I encourage them to reply if they have any further questions in this regard about the system requirements checker they originally asked about.

[Bud]

Related: When releasing a new version of Pro, benchmark GP tool execution times against previous version