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.