Skip to main content
David_198
Trending Lyricist I
November 7, 2016
Answered

Forced to update to incompatible controller software?

  • November 7, 2016
  • 45 replies
  • 1720 views
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.
    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.
    Best answer by Edward R
    David, your suggested approach of adding the player on the Windows 7 machine would suffice. Please be advised, however, that there may come a day where XP is no longer supported.

    45 replies

    Show previous replies
    David_198Author
    Trending Lyricist I
    November 9, 2016
    That is true. I hadn't even considered that. I have an Android phone so I could use that.
    David_198Author
    Trending Lyricist I
    November 9, 2016
    I definitely don't intend to leave my Sonos speakers on 24/7. That's crazy. With four speakers that's like having another fridge running. I use Z-wave sockets to turn the whole system on and off as required. I don't normally have to interact much with the controller anyway because the home automation groups the speakers and sets the sound source automatically when it comes on.

    I definitely have some interference problems. I have a Boost and yet still get some interference. I've tried putting the Sonos and wifi at the opposite extremes of the channel spectrum and that has helped, but I do still occasionally get interference.
    ratty
    ratty
    November 9, 2016
    I definitely don't intend to leave my Sonos speakers on 24/7. That's crazy. With four speakers that's like having another fridge running.
    It's around 14W for four PLAY:1s.

    Regularly powering electronics on and off is the most aggressive way of reducing their lifespan. It's your call of course but, as with routers, switches, access points and the like, Sonos units are network components designed to be left powered up. The amplifiers automatically switch off when idle,
    David_198Author
    Trending Lyricist I
    November 9, 2016
    Actually it's more like 19-20W. I've measured it. You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do. Turning a device on and off twice a day will not significantly affect its lifespan, that's absurd.
    There's no good reason to design them to be left on permanently, and in view of the concern about the very significant power drain by "vampire devices", they certainly should not be.
    Chris
    Chris
    Lead Maestro
    November 9, 2016
    That actually is not absurd. So what you wish though. I don't believe anyone attacked you for your views.
    Respect the Queue (2)Move (3)Beam (1) Era100 (2)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1) Roam (2) Ace (1)Connect:Amp (4)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings; (2)Play)
    ratty
    ratty
    November 9, 2016
    You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do. Turning a device on and off twice a day will not significantly affect its lifespan, that's absurd.
    Actually it does, as anyone who knows anything about electronics will tell you. Voltage and thermal cycling is the dominant factor in determining product life. (Others include simple chronological age.) The point when electronics fail is almost always at power-on.

    But, as I say, it's your choice. Bear in mind that the energy required to manufacture a replacement unit for one which has failed prematurely is also part of the equation.
    David_198Author
    Trending Lyricist I
    November 9, 2016
    Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.
    jgatie
    jgatie
    November 9, 2016
    Thermal cycling may lead to fatigue cracking of the solder joints, especially with elastic solders; various approaches are used to mitigate such incidents.


    Accumulation of charge carriers trapped in the gate oxide of MOSFETs. This introduces permanent gate biasing, influencing the transistor's threshold voltage; it may be caused by hot carrier injection, ionizing radiation or nominal use. With EEPROM cells, this is the major factor limiting the number of erase-write cycles.


    Note: Each power cycling requires a read/write cycle on the internal storage.

    During thermal cycling, the silicon atoms may migrate and clump together forming nodules that act as voids, increasing local resistance and lowering device lifetime.[2]



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_of_electronic_components
    Chris
    Chris
    Lead Maestro
    November 9, 2016
    Yea. It's the same device in EU no matter what the marketing speak.
    Respect the Queue (2)Move (3)Beam (1) Era100 (2)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1) Roam (2) Ace (1)Connect:Amp (4)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings; (2)Play)
    ratty
    ratty
    November 9, 2016
    A PSU might restrain a voltage ramp. However it can do nothing about the actual number of capacitor voltage cycles, nor the number of thermal cycles.
    Show more replies
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement