Talk:Star network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about some history and practical usage examples? --Highwind 08:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term "router" in the first paragraph is improper and inconsistent with the definition given in the link. Also, under advantages, collisions still exist when connected via a hub; only when a star network connected via a switch are collisions avoided. This is a function of the switch, not the cabling. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.115.57.157 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure how a star network is "expensive" to deploy. Compared to what? Imprecise at best, but I'm looking into this. Savant45 09:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged as confusing

Apperantly someone has recently made some silly vandalism to this page. Will someone look into this?

The way this article is written doesn't provide a lot of context for readers not familiar with the subject and as such it may not make a lot of sense to the general public. Someone adequately familiar with it should rewrite it with some better language and context to make it friendlier to the average reader and not just the IT professional. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the real benefits compared to a dual-ring topology?

Let's say cost is a secondary consideration. Is a (dual) star topology more reliable than a dual ring? The application I have is dynamic positioning of ships. A control system failure could be catastrophic - both in lives and assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.153.252 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)