(Obligatory "cool!")
Was anybody using 32 bit Mac? I left it off this time by accident since I forgot we even had it available, but I can keep it up if somebody's still using it.
I came here to point this out, actually. I don't think anyone really
needs it, unless their Mac is more ancient than yours, but it can be handy for research (obviously not a high priority, though - I would be certainly be fine with having it delayed a few days to get more useful builds of releases out faster).
About the closest to a potentially-useful metric I can find are download counts for DFHack (as reported by GitHub, which won't include people who redistribute it or anything):
53 dfhack-0.43.05-r1-OSX-32-gcc-4.8.5.tar.bz2
234 dfhack-0.43.05-r1-OSX-64-gcc-4.8.5.tar.bz2
85 dfhack-0.43.05-r2-OSX-32-gcc-4.8.5.tar.bz2
421 dfhack-0.43.05-r2-OSX-64-gcc-4.8.5.tar.bz2
There's a non-zero number of people downloading the 32-bit version (the architecture has to match DF). Of course, what I can't tell you is how many of those people download the 32-bit version accidentally (since it comes first alphabetically), realize that it won't work, then download the 64-bit version too, so take that with a grain of salt.
Stop including the C runtime libraries!
AFAIK it is against the Microsoft VS terms and conditions to include these libraries directly, and even if it wasn't it would still be a bad idea.
If you must, bundle the redistributable installer, never bundle the runtime DLLs directly.
(Ok, it is allowed nowadays, but it is not recommended.)
Yeah, it's not ideal. However, I think a decent number of people used to DF now would complain if DF required running an installer, and with MSVC 2015, more people stuck on older systems don't have all of the DLLs needed by DF (which I believe is why there are so many as of 0.43.05). I wish there were a way to hide them in a subfolder, like the Linux/macOS builds, but I don't know of one.