Answered

Forced to update to incompatible controller software?

  • 7 November 2016
  • 45 replies
  • 1612 views
D
Badge
I have been using my three Sonos Play:1s quite happily now for well over a year, but now I have bought a new Play:1 and when trying to add it, I'm told "Your Sonos controller must be updated before you can add and set up Sonos products". I recall getting an email saying that the latest version of the Sonos Controller would not be compatible with Windows XP, which I'm still using on the machine where the Sonos controller is used.

Does this mean that I will be forced to update to a version of the controller that is not compatible with my OS, thus rendering my entire system unusable?

Before anyone says it, I am not interested in updating to a newer version of Windows at the moment. It's an enormous amount of work and there is no compelling reason for it. The OS is just background infrastructure in my view, not a toy. It should be meddled with as little as possible.
icon

Best answer by Edward R 7 November 2016, 23:46

View original
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

45 replies

jgatie
No, I mean it is far more complicated than simply measuring watts. Materials used, manufacturing methods, shipping methods, lifespan, replacement cost, disposal method, etc., all have an environmental impact. If you are perfectly OK justifying your concerns by ignoring these factors because you think they are minimal or do not apply, fine. That is your right. But there is pretty good evidence that some of the more "green" technologies have hidden environmental costs that dwarf the savings advertised.

And the only limited Sonos devices are the controllers. The original ZP100 and all subsequent players are still going strong. Of course that does bring up the fact that Sonos brand controllers have been abandoned for phones/tablets, which are the poster children for the disposable society, not to mention having a catastrophic environmental and human impact in the places they are manufactured and/or "recycled". But that is another story altogether.

Anyway, I think the point is made that a lot of this is mere cherry picking to make oneself feel good, with no real measure of the true environmental impact. None of us is really willing to live without our luxuries despite the effects on our planet and its people, so we point to the big yellow Energy Usage stickers to alleviate the guilt. But then again, I'm a born pessimist, YMMV! 😃
D
Badge
Yes, but you're raising concerns that individuals have no way to factor in to their calculations in practice. Even if I wanted to, I could not calculate all of those impacts that you mention. Short of hairshirt environmentalism (trying to consume less), which I believe is a total dead end, not least because most people will never adopt such a lifestyle, all you can do is take the measures that lie within your power as an individual. I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that either we pay no attention to energy usage, or stop consuming products altogether. It's not true that energy efficiency has no impact - the trend in energy usage vs. GDP growth suggests otherwise.
jgatie
As I said, you do what makes you feel good. Others take other factors into account, and feel the mitigating factors do not justify the possible impact of turning the units off all the time (the same tactic you used earlier in thread to discount the life cycle argument). Neither one is wrong. Which is why statements like "You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do." will be challenged. Nobody is accusing you of being environmentally careless, in kind you shouldn't resort to knee-jerk accusations in reply to well thought out, well evidenced rebuttal of your position either.
D
Badge
Like I said, I'm a bad mood today for unrelated reasons so I apologise for using overly aggressive language.
I don't see how others can take those other tactors into account when they don't have the data to do the comparison. I think each person should do whatever is in their power, and trust that others will do their part.
jgatie
Well, that's the thing. You don't see how others can take the other factors into account, and we don't see how you can not take them into account. Your view is that you are cutting down on energy use by turning them off, with no accounting for the fact you may actually be using more energy (not to mention other environmental impacts). You are just assuming the mitigating circumstances are not negating your efforts, whereas we are assuming the opposite. Both sides are assuming, one is simplifying the equation, the other complicating it. Neither one is necessarily correct, and both are assuming much more than is in evidence.*

*Though I would posit that there is much evidence to support both the shortened lifespan of electronics due to voltage/power cycling and the environmental impact of the disposable society; which the decreased lifetime of a Sonos unit would certainly contribute to.
D
Badge
You're missing my point. My actions cut down my electricity bill. This is a real gain that I can calculate. The other consideration is pure speculation.
jgatie
You're missing my point. My actions cut down my electricity bill. This is a real gain that I can calculate. The other consideration is pure speculation.

Well maybe I did miss your point. If your entire goal is to merely cut down on your electricity bill with no concern for overall environmental impact, then you are correct in your decision. However, it didn't seem like that was your entire goal when you chastised others for not doing the same for their bill, it really seemed you were talking more globally than your own personal energy costs. If that is not the case, then I apologize.
D
Badge
I'm doing both, obviously.
jgatie
I'm doing both, obviously.

Then I guess I didn't miss the point after all. 😉
D
Badge
Yes, you did. I save money and reduce my energy consumption, compared to saving an unknown (and in practice unknowable) amount of resources from lengthening the life of my equipment by an unknown amount.
Paulw123
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
Hey have you seen Leonardo Dicaprio "before the flood"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UGsRcxaSAI
Seems if we stopped eating beef and changed to chicken, we may have a chance, due to methane from cow burps!!...who knew...
B
Userlevel 5
Badge +11
The cost of the z sockets and their expected lifespan somewhat ameliorate any perceived waste of money in energy consumption. Add in environmental cost of their production then just how much does it cost to leave on 24/7. Around 5 years to recoup the energy cost?

There is always balance and checks in such decisions.
ratty
Why this idea that the standby energy consumption is wasted? In cooler climes it heats the house, offsetting other energy costs.
jgatie
Yes, you did. I save money and reduce my energy consumption, compared to saving an unknown (and in practice unknowable) amount of resources from lengthening the life of my equipment by an unknown amount.

Again, you have no way of knowing that you reduce your overall energy consumption, any more than I do by leaving it on. Your energy bill is less, that is a fact. However, overall energy consumption (and environmental impact) is as unknown for me as it is for you. I assume my overall impact is reduced by leaving it on, based on accepted science, and estimations of reduced lifespan coupled with energy/environmental costs of manufacture, replacement, and disposal. You estimate the overall impact is reduced due to your own guesses of the same. So if you believe you are globally reducing energy consumption as well as personally, that belief is based on just as much conjecture as mine. Again, you are saving on your electric bill, that is a fact. That you are reducing any global energy use is very much up in the air. The facts just may be that by leaving it on and spending more a month, your overall impact is less.
jgatie
Why this idea that the standby energy consumption is wasted? In cooler climes it heats the house, offsetting other energy costs.

Exactly. It is far more complicated than "Lower electricity bill == Good for environment". It's never a one-to-one relationship. After all, electric cars are claimed to be great for the environment, but I guarantee their owner's electric bills are sky high from charging that car up every night.
D
Badge
Why this idea that the standby energy consumption is wasted? In cooler climes it heats the house, offsetting other energy costs.

Leaving devices on which don't need to be on to heat the house is a really, really inefficient method.
D
Badge
Why this idea that the standby energy consumption is wasted? In cooler climes it heats the house, offsetting other energy costs.

Exactly. It is far more complicated than "Lower electricity bill == Good for environment". It's never a one-to-one relationship. After all, electric cars are claimed to be great for the environment, but I guarantee their owner's electric bills are sky high from charging that car up every night.

No one is going to state all of their assumptions. Some things should be obvious. Most electricity is (still) generated from non-renewable sources in most parts of the world. Reducing energy usage is almost always a gain because, providing that cleaner sources are prioritised, it will lead to the closure of more dirtier power stations or avoid the building of new ones.
D
Badge
Yes, you did. I save money and reduce my energy consumption, compared to saving an unknown (and in practice unknowable) amount of resources from lengthening the life of my equipment by an unknown amount.

Again, you have no way of knowing that you reduce your overall energy consumption, any more than I do by leaving it on. Your energy bill is less, that is a fact. However, overall energy consumption (and environmental impact) is as unknown for me as it is for you. I assume my overall impact is reduced by leaving it on, based on accepted science, and estimations of reduced lifespan coupled with energy/environmental costs of manufacture, replacement, and disposal. You estimate the overall impact is reduced due to your own guesses of the same. So if you believe you are globally reducing energy consumption as well as personally, that belief is based on just as much conjecture as mine. Again, you are saving on your electric bill, that is a fact. That you are reducing any global energy use is very much up in the air. The facts just may be that by leaving it on and spending more a month, your overall impact is less.

So you've calculated those estimates, have you?
jgatie
No, not totally, and neither have you. I do know there is a cost, and an offset of convenience vs. energy savings. As do you. So any critique you have of my approach to global energy savings is just as baseless of my critique of yours.


Except I never made a critique of yours . . .
D
Badge
No, not totally, and neither have you. I do know there is a cost, and an offset of convenience vs. energy savings. As do you. So any critique you have of my approach to global energy savings is just as baseless of my critique of yours.


Except I never made a critique of yours . . .

Not totally? So partially?
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings