@Harald Unger:
Even in times of fast loading internet it makes sense to look into not so high resolution pictures.
1GB filesize is still 1 GB filesize and there are a lot of stuff thats been loaded.
What counts additional is your RAM and your graphic-card.
F.e. if you got a normal office PC with 4GB RAM and an integrated on board graphic-card this will take much longer time for the board to load the content of your board because the graphic-card will do all the work.
Maybe you try to load your board on an high-end-gaming-pc or a pc with higher RAM (8GB) a good grahic-card and compare it with an office-laptop with an normal graphic-chip inside.
Are there differences from the loading time?
So my sugesstion is to reduce the filesize of the pictures and then to look into the loading performance of your site.
Michael
Hello @mlanders , thank you for your reply.
The things you mentioned are totally right. It very much depends on the speed of the internet connections, I see a huge difference in my private internet connection and the corporate network. I have also compared different hardware, and RAM and graphics can definetely speed things up.
When it comes to the file size of the pictures we don’t want to make any compromises when it comes to resolutions because these are fotos made with a microscope, i.e. the details are very important.
Miro is very intuitive to compare these results and make comments and draw connections, but the cloud solution is not the ideal solution for the file size. That’s the reason why I wanted to use the miro desktop app and load the file from my hard drive.
@Harald Unger :
Ok - I see but if you use the desktop app are the files not loaded from the cloud into the app.
It’s new to me that the files are stored onto your PC?
Maybe I am wrong because I never used the desktop app.
Michael
@mlanders: exactly, it looks to me as the files are still not saved to the desktop if the app is used. So the bottleneck of the internet connection still exisits.
That’s the reason for opening this question. I want to find out if this possibility exists, and if so, how I can make use of it :)
Mhh:
@Harald Unger :
Is the following workaround a possibility:
- Creating a backupfile of the board
- Saving different parts of the board as PDF in the best quality and take this parts off of the board
- Adding the PDF-File-Sites into the board
- How about the filesize of the board?
For the reason of the bottleneck we voted for an offlineversion of miro - maybe you can vote for it, too:
https://community.miro.com/wish-list-32/offline-mode-925
Michael
Hi @mlanders, thanks for the suggestion!
I am afraind the result would not be satisfying, we have tried this already. The size gets smaller, but with some drawbacks.
On the one hand this is still connected with a loss of resolution (and therefore details in the picture), and on the other hand one of the most appreciated features of miro is lost, the possibility of rearranging the board in a new way (which we would like to do constantly because of new insights we get).
Thanks for the link, you got my vote for the offline version of miro!
Harald
Hi Harald,
seems to be a difficult situation for you.
One last idea (but you’ve had it already, I’m sure):
How about dividing the content of your boards into 3 different or more boards and linking them together.
So the loading does not take so long and you’re still able to use miro?
Michael
I am afraid there is no ready to use solution for my problem.
Yes, we have considered linking several miro boards as a last resort, but still it is not a really satisfying solution.
Thank you very much for all your suggestions, @mlanders :)
