Docs: Update Windows install instructions

[JoeUX]

• Updated the instructions to account for Windows 10 path editor
• linked to third-party editors for pre-10 Windows
• separated instructions for technical and non-technical users
• changed D drive paths to C drive since D is the default optical drive on most Windows systems
• cut the assumption about 64-bit Windows since 32-bit binary is also available
• cut the assumption about command line since we're giving GUI instructions to non-technical users
• cut a bug in the doc where we had people typing D: at the command prompt after submitting cd D:\Hugo\Sites.
• Recommend snipping 386 and AMD from ZIP file names, since they don't add useful info and will just confuse novices.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have accepted the CLA.

[digitalcraftsman]

Hello @JoeArizona,

thanks for contributing an updated version of the install instructions. I noticed two changes in the frontmatter that wouldn't be present in the docs:

1. the docs don't use the revision by variable in the frontmatter
2. lastmod needs to be 2016-02-10 (notice the 0 in front of the month number). Otherwise Hugo doesn't use this date due to wrong notation and falls back to date.

[digitalcraftsman]

Merged as a103d58 (master) and f9776a7 (v0.15.docs).

[anthonyfok]

Recommend snipping 386 and AMD from ZIP file names, since they don't add useful info and will just confuse novices.

I believe that those _386.zip and _amd64.zip suffixes, which are consistent with how Go name the different architectures, are added by https://github.com/laher/goxc that @spf13 uses for cross-compiling and generating releases. See http://spf13.com/post/cross-compiling-go/

I am ambivalent on this: On one hand, the names 386 and amd64 could confuse newbies.

On the other hand, they are the correct or even canonical names for these architectures, whereas 386 is compatible with Intel 386 (or i386) and up, and whereas AMD64 is indeed the official name of the 64-bit instruction set, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

So, no, I don't think we could just snip 386 and amd64 from the ZIP file names. Changing them to win32 and win64 would be inaccurate either, especially now that Windows are often run on non-Intel platforms too, especially ARM, where we also have 32-bit and 64-bit versions?

Perhaps we should guide newbies to learn 386 and amd64 instead of trying to hide them? Maybe a short note on the download page and in the Windows install instruction?

[JoeUX]

Hi Anthony, sorry I missed this. There were a few reasons why I didn't think the 386 and AMD64 labeling was as clear as the alternatives:

• 386 refers to a processor architecture that was introduced 30 years ago, the 80386 in 1986, and it doesn't usefully describe the ISA that a 32-bit install will use in 2016. Just saying Windows 32-bit, or Linux 32-bit, is cleaner and clearer than saying Windows_386_32-bit-only for example.
• AMD64: It's true that AMD first laid out the x86-64 architecture and licensed it to Intel, but AMD hasn't been driving it for a very long time. Since AMD didn't make Intel call it the AMD64 architecture, I don't know why anyone else would call it that. It would be like calling MS SQL Server Sybase because MS bought or licensed Sybase in the 90s and evolved it into SQL Server.
• AMD is too similar to ARM. In fast skimming of a page or links, it sure helps to not have to sort out ARM and AMD.

It's not a huge deal, but those were some of the considerations for me. 32-bit and 64-bit are golden as far as clarity and concision, and even x86 and x86-64 are pretty standard.

Cheers,

Joe

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.