registers sohould be named r0...rX
would be better and objective.

Using the registers consistently has other advantages besides size optimization. Like using good variable names, using consistent registers makes code more readable. When they are used properly, the registers have meanings almost as clear as the loop counter, i, in higher-level languages. In fact, I occasionally name my variables in C after x86 registers because the register names are so descriptive. With proper register use, x86 assembler can be almost as self-documenting as a high-level language.

Quote:

Using the registers consistently has other advantages besides size optimization. Like using good variable names, using consistent registers makes code more readable. When they are used properly, the registers have meanings almost as clear as the loop counter, i, in higher-level languages. In fact, I occasionally name my variables in C after x86 registers because the register names are so descriptive. With proper register use, x86 assembler can be almost as self-documenting as a high-level language.

so you didnt have done anything complex eought.
Good luck in programming graphic render, or massive calcualtions you will need more than 30 loops. Then eax, ebx, e?x wouldnt matter. It will just bring chaos. r1...r100 is best solution. Also x86 shouldnt be register based (eg: division not using eax but i specyfi registers)

When asmcoder posts something, I wonder if the method he use to generate it is based on something around this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001132.html

The pig go. Go is to the fountain. The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in what? ketchup. The dove fly. Fly is in sky. The dove drop something. The something on the pig. The pig disgusting. The pig rattle. Rattle with dove. The dove angry. The pig leave. The dove produce. Produce is chicken wing. With wing bark. No Quack.