Talk:Star network

message: is it really still opjbjkh0ohlm, vgi90
n other networks? 
especially when i can pick up a wifi router for $5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.99.54 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now reads "due to the number and length of cables needed to wire each host to the central hub" with ref. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: expensive?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If there ever was a tag, it was removed at some point. The article makes sense to me but I'm an IT professional. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as confusing 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Requires a large cable to be connected.", oh really? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: A dual star topology can potentially withstand multiple failures. A self-healing ring can only ever withstand one. ~Kvng (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the real benefits compared to a dual-ring topology? 

message: The introduction to this article seems very repetitive as if numerous contributors added similar sentences and phrases without editing/deleting similar content. I really think that it needs to be re-written by someone familiar with the concepts so that it is more concise and focused.
For example:
The sentences (1st para): "This consists of a central node, to which all other nodes are connected; this central node provides a common connection point for all nodes through a hub. In star topology, every node (computer workstation or any other peripheral) is connected to a central node called a hub or switch. " seem circular and could use some editing.
I suggest that the paragraph, "It is also designed with each node (file servers, workstations, and peripherals) connected directly to a central network hub, switch, or concentrator" be deleted or revised as it repeats previous text.
The concepts contained in the sentence, "Data on a star network passes through the hub, switch, or concentrator before continuing to its destination" has already been included in previous text.
Diddy1960 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be more concise. 

message: Both very different technologies and terms. Not 'apples for apples'
*Be the change you want to see* (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No to merging