On Wednesday, October 20, 2010 05:58:14 am you wrote:
> Wouldn't it have been better to give us the choice, simply by doing
> nothing and just publishing in the 10.10 release notes that there was
> a driver issue and Intel werre working on it? What is the argument
> for actively disabling 802.11n? I could have quite happily
> re-configured my router and laptop so that I only connected to
> wireless G if I was that bothered about the N degrading.
No, because the degradation wasn't limited to N connections. All users of
iwlagn were affected, so as unfortunate as it was, disabling N until a proper
fix available was the least bad option available.
On Wednesday, October 20, 2010 05:58:14 am you wrote:
> Wouldn't it have been better to give us the choice, simply by doing
> nothing and just publishing in the 10.10 release notes that there was
> a driver issue and Intel werre working on it? What is the argument
> for actively disabling 802.11n? I could have quite happily
> re-configured my router and laptop so that I only connected to
> wireless G if I was that bothered about the N degrading.
No, because the degradation wasn't limited to N connections. All users of
iwlagn were affected, so as unfortunate as it was, disabling N until a proper
fix available was the least bad option available.