Talk:Chief Architect Software

History of Releases

It would be useful for the Wikipedia page to include the dates of the various Chief Architect software releases. Based on 15 minutes of forum digging, here is what I know so far:

• X14: Released on May 24, 2022 per https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/34710-x-14-official-release
• X13: Beta was available in June 2021 per https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/30694-x13-release-date/page/2/
• X12: ?
• X11: ?
• X10: ?
• X9: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCJames (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief Architect Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218202214/http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history to http://www.windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Connected contributor(s)

This article about a notable, important, and interesting software company and their products is fairly extensive, but somewhat laudatory in tone and not well sourced to 3rd party sources. A few days back, I removed some obvious peacock terms but more could be done. The above IP which appears to resolve to chiefarchitect.com has recently added some additional detail, which I have checked is factual and not biased. So no problem, but future editors affiliated with the company are advised to read WP:PSCOI. Martinp (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Chief Architect Wikipedia article

Moved from User talk:Tom.Reding § Chief Architect Wikipedia article

From Jack Simpson, chairman of Chief Architect, Inc. - mentioned by name in the Wikipedia article.

Hi. I was thinking of editing the article myself, but the process seems reasonably complex, and I may be violating some conflict of interest issues since I am connected to the company.

Could you edit the article a little, if you think it is appropriate to do so, or if not, advise me how to go about it - the process seems a bit complex for a newbie? I noticed a few minor inaccuracies. I have recently (July 1, 2021) self-published a memoir/autobiography "To Build a Life," on Amazon, which had me looking at various histories and timelines, including that of the Chief Architect company.

First, “and relocated the Company to Coeur d’Alene in the LATE 1990s." is inaccurate. I moved to Coeur d'Alene, ID very close to New Year’s Day, 1993. “in the early 1990s,” or better yet, “early 1993” would be better. At that time I and two others, who moved to Coeur d'Alene soon after me, were all the employees of the start-up company. This is described in my memoir, chapter 38.

Second, “Finding that intuitive residential design software did not exist, Simpson created Chief Architect - a tool to design homes," is at best misleading - I did not really care what, if any, other software of that type existed, and did very little to try using any of it.

The real reason is given in the book: The idea to write a house planning program was to demonstrate my qualifications for a job at a software company. This is told in chapter 36. I was not seeking to start a company to sell that software until after the prototype version was running and usable by others. It was an early user of my test program that convinced me to try selling the product.

Admittedly, some of my reason here is to get a reference to my new book, which is expected to sell in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, but it is the most authoritative story on how the company started and its early years.

I'd appreciate your help or any advice you might have on my trying this myself if you think that would be better.

Thanks,

Jack W. Simpson, Chairman, Chief Architect, Inc. You could contact me through the company if you wish. I am uncertain about leaving my email or phone number on this page.

This message was left on my talk page from an IP editor. I have no interest in editing the article, so I'm leaving it here for anyone who is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

IP: you may also ask/post this at the WP:Teahouse. If no response here, or editing in the article in the near future, I'll do so.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

SORRY: I just found that the two inaccurate pieces of information were taken directly from reference 1, the company's own website! I will get the content of reference 1 changed first, before I can expect anyone at Wikipedia to take action on my above requests. I will edit this note when that is done. (From Jack Simpson on 7 Sep 2021) I just looked at the Chief Architect website, and they changed the text in their "about" section (referred to in the Wikipedia article) to be more accurate. Also, someone did slight editing to the main Wikipedia article so that it has no substantive inaccuracies. The reason for my initial writing of the software is not how I would put it, but depending on how you look at things, can be accurate. So, I have no further issues regarding inaccuracies in the article. Thanks to all who did whatever they did.