Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!haven!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: The last word on MSB/LSB (I hope) Message-ID: <9010@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 29 Nov 88 14:02:54 GMT References: <8811271555.aa16183@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 11 In article <8811271555.aa16183@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> ST702174@BROWNVM.BITNET (Dan Bornstein) writes: >If the 65xx were MSB first, then it would have to change its internal >architecture for different addressing modes. ONLY if you assume that it fetches bytes in ascending address order. It in fact a time sequence were involved (which it is NOT), then indeed LSB first has the advantage you cite. This is why I harp on using proper terminology instead of "first"! Dave Lyons posted the most careful description so far.