Cisco's consistency between products in the same family, in this case WAPs, has never been good. You guys do a decent job of keeping your GUI feeling the same, but it's little changes, for no apparent reason, that drive me nuts. I just figured out why I was so uncomfortable with the WAP371 setup over the WAP561. The 561 has the 2.4G antenna as Radio 1 and the 5G antenna as Radio 2. The 371 is backwards. I was configuring a cluster of 561's yesterday and totally configured them backwards since I'd been working with the 371 so much.
Cisco really must be consistent between products. We sell 321's and 561's and expect to sell 371's (assuming they don't replace the 321's and given the price difference between 321 and 561, perhaps the 321 needs to be retired). Having a consistent interface and naming conventions allows Cisco's partners to move from one client to another without having to shift gears into another frame of thought. I'd rather move between 561's and an Aironet than from a 561 to a 371 if radios are going to be backwards, I'll never remember which is which.
If Cisco is only counting on a single admin at a single company to see a 371 and never a 561 then this won't matter, but there's no reason you can't account for both scenarios.
You could solve this by not using the term Radio #. Why don't you call them 5G Radio and 2.4G Radio? They're really not a #1 and #2 radio, but two distinct radios with different frequencies, but in the end, all your WAPs need to be consistent.
