Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo; site apollo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!apollo!rees
From: rees@apollo.UUCP (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Re: 4.2 BSD Unix Workstation Survey Results
Message-ID: <212@apollo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 14:37:54 EST
Article-I.D.: apollo.212
Posted: Tue Dec 20 14:37:54 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Dec-83 01:13:16 EST
References: <999@sdchema.UUCP>
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 12

I assume that Donn was joking when he said that byte order
in NS16032 system is correct and that in a 68000 it is
backwards.  Neither order is inherently superior to the
other, of course.  What is important is that the order
be consistent within a particular implementation, and
I believe it is for both of these processors.

Motorola does number their bits backwards from the way they
order their bytes.  I don't know the reason for this, but
since they have no bit-field instructions it doesn't make
a lot of difference.