Re: count2.asm

Evenbit wrote:
> Now, just hold on a minute! Correct me if I've missed a few posts, but
> I don't recall any mention of the 'test file' being restricted to
> residing on our local harddrive.

Performing a bit of auto-correction here now that I've 'dug into' the
other thread enough to see that y'all have been focusing on local disk
throughput along with other code optimizations. But, I still think
that my point is valid when you think in terms of robustness. Perhaps
maybe a command-line option {to disable the hd optimization} for when
the 'test file' isn't present where you expect it to be?

Nathan.

.