Post by thread:[PIC] Comparison of cheaper USB PIC programmers

>From : http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=283491 What is your opinion on my classfication of USB PIC programmers? I know there are some good serial based PIC programmers like PICStart+ and Wisp628A but I think USB based counterparts are better. As someone who has used PICKit 1, PICkit 2, ICD2, Promate II and Promate III and a follower of PICkit 2, I find it interesting that people still want to create yet another simple USB programmer. Anyway, here are my classification of USB PIC programmers. I might miss many programmers in the lists but it pretty much show you the pictures. After class 3, then there are many high end programmers from Data I/O, BP or similar for mass production. **************** Class 1: Simple USB programmers (not as good as PICkit 2 and Olin's USBprog): 1. picsquirt http://www.p10link.net/plugwash/picsquirt/ 2. GTP USB lite (somewhat like a USB version of Wouter's WISP628A) http://www.hobbypic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=35 **************** Class 2: Good for personal and lab use 1. PICKit 2, good and cheap, supports many PICs and double as a debugger. 2. Another good USB programmer is the Amadeus. The author is aparently very knowledgeable about PIC programming specifications. Not many people understand it as thoughly as him. Olin may be one of them. http://home.arcor.de/bernhard.michelis/ 3. USBprog is a kind of higher-end PICkit 2 in terms of hardware functionality. USBprog hits a good spot between PICkit 2 and Promate III but I find its chip support quite limitted compared to PICKit 2. And for normal people, an external 5V supply and PICkit 2 perhaps is almost as good as a USBprog. 4. MPLAB ICD2 Comaprison of PICKit 2 and ICD2 http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=282776 5. GTP-USB+ with WinPIC800 http://www.winpic800.com/index.php?lang=en The author is certainly another PIC programmer expert. Take note that WinPIC800 supports many cheap programmers but I am only talking about GTP-USB+ here. **************** Class 3: low quantity production quality programmer After class 2 then you have higher-end USB programmers like Promate III and SoftLog ICP2. SoftLog ICP2 seems to be a serious contender to PM3 at much lower cost. Between USBProg and Promate III, there are still quite some good gaps. SoftLog ICP2 is a good attempt. Olin's Proprog (not USB) might be good but I find SoftLog ICP2 more attaractive (integrated with MPLAB and supports more PICs). www.microchipdirect.com/ProductDetails.aspx?Catalog=BuyMicrochip&Category=Programmers&mid=13

Hi, I use CCS' MachX.Consider it to be class 3. I does not need MPLAB to work. I has a "start programming" button on it. It automatically identifies the chip you put in it. (Provided the chip belongs to the identifiable ones.) It has ICP connector. It can double as an ICD. It has variable VDD. It is USB-powered. It is in a nice box. It integrates with CCS' IDE, which I think is far better than MPLAB (with the exception that it doesn't support my MPLAB ICE 2000). I love it. PerL {Original Message removed}

On 10/2/07, Per Linne <spam_OUTper.linneTakeThisOuTswipnet.se> wrote: > Hi, > > I use CCS' MachX.Consider it to be class 3. > > I does not need MPLAB to work. > I has a "start programming" button on it. > It automatically identifies the chip you put in it. > (Provided the chip belongs to the identifiable ones.) > It has ICP connector. > It can double as an ICD. > It has variable VDD. > It is USB-powered. > It is in a nice box. > It integrates with CCS' IDE, which I think is > far better than MPLAB (with the exception that > it doesn't support my MPLAB ICE 2000). > Nice one with Linux support as well. At US$199, it is kind of the upper-end of Class II and lower end of Class III. Seems to be like a ICD2 and PS+ combined. Quite nice. However I hear many negative reviews of CCS C compiler. Xiaofan

That is because you listen to the wrong people. ;-) I have used it for 10 years and I have not had any problems that have been worse than with other software products. I knew assembly programming with PIC:s rather well when I started to use CCS C and I was careful not to challenge its capabilities, but rather used what I found it was good for. Besides I continuously buy their maintenance and hence I get upgrades whenever they occur. PerL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xiaofan Chen" <.....xiaofancKILLspam@spam@gmail.com> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistKILLspammit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [PIC] Comparison of cheaper USB PIC programmers > > > However I hear many negative reviews of CCS > C compiler. > > Xiaofan > --

Per Linne wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi, > > I use CCS' MachX.Consider it to be class 3. > > I does not need MPLAB to work. > I has a "start programming" button on it. > It automatically identifies the chip you put in it. > (Provided the chip belongs to the identifiable ones.) > It has ICP connector. > It can double as an ICD. > It has variable VDD. > It is USB-powered. > It is in a nice box. > It integrates with CCS' IDE, which I think is > far better than MPLAB (with the exception that > it doesn't support my MPLAB ICE 2000). > > I love it. > > PerL > > I like DIY Electronics' K182 and K128, no MMPLAB needed. It doesn't support many recent PIC devices. But it can stand alone as a programmer, and is VERY cheap. --Bob A

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:47:51 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 10/2/07, Per Linne <.....per.linneKILLspam.....swipnet.se> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I use CCS' MachX.Consider it to be class 3. >> >> I does not need MPLAB to work. >> I has a "start programming" button on it. It automatically identifies >> the chip you put in it. (Provided the chip belongs to the identifiable >> ones.) It has ICP connector. It can double as an ICD. It has variable >> VDD. It is USB-powered. It is in a nice box. >> It integrates with CCS' IDE, which I think is far better than MPLAB >> (with the exception that it doesn't support my MPLAB ICE 2000). >> >> > Nice one with Linux support as well. At US$199, it is kind of the upper- > end of Class II and lower end of Class III. Seems to be like a ICD2 and > PS+ combined. Quite nice. > > However I hear many negative reviews of CCS C compiler. I think the negative reviews of the CCS C compiler are highly overblown. I've been using PCWH (the Windows IDE/C Compiler) for the last several years pretty much exclusively for all my PIC development work. I like having one compiler that works for all the PICs from 12/14/16 through the 18F families (something Microchip still doesn't have). It makes moving code up or down through different PIC devices very easy. CCS recently added PIC24 capability although I haven't used it yet. The CCS debugger is far, far, far superior to MPLAB (IMO) for debugging C code. After using some of the better source level debuggers out there, MPLAB is kinda lame. I'm a registered Microchip consultant and I can get Microchip tools virtually for free and I prefer the CCS tools. No, the CCS C compiler is not perfect but it's very good and has been for quite some time. I also have a MachX programmer/debugger and it has worked well for me too. It's solid and well designed. Their ICD U-40 ICD/ICSP device is also superior to the ICD2, IMO and a lot cheaper ($75). Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems

On 10/2/07, Bob Axtell <EraseMEengineerspam_OUTTakeThisOuTcotse.net> wrote: > I like DIY Electronics' K182 and K128, no MMPLAB needed. It doesn't > support many recent PIC devices. But it can stand alone as a programmer, > and is VERY cheap. Before PICkit 2, I was interested in DIY K182/128. With PICkit 2, they are not really that cheap any more. The price is similar to PICkit 2, at least from Wouter's number. It seems everything in EU is more expensive due to high tax but again the welfare is better... http://www.voti.nl/shop/catalog.html?K-DIY-182

HI, Try "GOOGLE" "PIC Programmers". BEN> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:31:58 +0800> From: xiaofancspam_OUTgmail.com> To: @spam@piclistKILLspammit.edu> Subject: Re: [PIC] Comparison of cheaper USB PIC programmers> > On 10/2/07, Bob Axtell <KILLspamengineerKILLspamcotse.net> wrote:> > > I like DIY Electronics' K182 and K128, no MMPLAB needed. It doesn't> > support many recent PIC devices. But it can stand alone as a programmer,> > and is VERY cheap.> > Before PICkit 2, I was interested in DIY K182/128. With> PICkit 2, they are not really that cheap any more.> > The price is similar to PICkit 2, at least from> Wouter's number. It seems everything in EU> is more expensive due to high tax but again> the welfare is better...> http://www.voti.nl/shop/catalog.html?K-DIY-182>

Humm, I'd like the 150+ hours I spent tracking down at least a dozen serious bugs in it back again. This was about 3 years ago, the PCH, it was a horror show of failing to function with included sample code, regressive bugs showing the lack of automated test suites, and continual upgrades to fix literally hundreds of bugs. This was *after the beta test*. Buying it was the biggest mistake of my EE career, but since I was just starting out on projects with way to small budgets there was no chance of switching to anything else. 200+ version releases over 3 years later, I haven't found a bug in awhile, but I've also moved on to AVR. It also seems that the company is under new or at least revitalized management and moving forward. J Per Linne wrote: {Quote hidden}> That is because you listen to the wrong people. ;-) > > I have used it for 10 years and I have not had any > problems that have been worse than with other software > products. I knew assembly programming with PIC:s > rather well when I started to use CCS C and I was > careful not to challenge its capabilities, but rather > used what I found it was good for. Besides I continuously > buy their maintenance and hence I get upgrades whenever > they occur. > > PerL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xiaofan Chen" <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTgmail.com> > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonemit.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [PIC] Comparison of cheaper USB PIC programmers >> >> However I hear many negative reviews of CCS >> C compiler. >> >> Xiaofan >> --

If I have to CRAFT my code to suit the compiler than I won't use it... Unless there is NO alternatives. John --- Jesse Lackey <TakeThisOuTjsl-mlEraseMEspam_OUTcelestialaudio.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Humm, I'd like the 150+ hours I spent tracking down > at least a dozen > serious bugs in it back again. This was about 3 > years ago, the PCH, it > was a horror show of failing to function with > included sample code, > regressive bugs showing the lack of automated test > suites, and continual > upgrades to fix literally hundreds of bugs. This > was *after the beta > test*. Buying it was the biggest mistake of my EE > career, but since I > was just starting out on projects with way to small > budgets there was no > chance of switching to anything else. > > 200+ version releases over 3 years later, I haven't > found a bug in > awhile, but I've also moved on to AVR. > > It also seems that the company is under new or at > least revitalized > management and moving forward. > > J > > > Per Linne wrote: > > That is because you listen to the wrong people. > ;-) > > > > I have used it for 10 years and I have not had > any > > problems that have been worse than with other > software > > products. I knew assembly programming with PIC:s > > rather well when I started to use CCS C and I was > > careful not to challenge its capabilities, but > rather > > used what I found it was good for. Besides I > continuously > > buy their maintenance and hence I get upgrades > whenever > > they occur. > > > > PerL > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Xiaofan Chen" <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTgmail.com> > > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." > <piclistEraseME.....mit.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:47 AM > > Subject: Re: [PIC] Comparison of cheaper USB PIC > programmers > >> > >> However I hear many negative reviews of CCS > >> C compiler. > >> > >> Xiaofan > >> --

On 10/3/07, Jesse Lackey <EraseMEjsl-mlcelestialaudio.com> wrote: > Humm, I'd like the 150+ hours I spent tracking down at least a dozen > serious bugs in it back again. This was about 3 years ago, the PCH, it > was a horror show of failing to function with included sample code, > regressive bugs showing the lack of automated test suites, and continual > upgrades to fix literally hundreds of bugs. This was *after the beta > test*. Buying it was the biggest mistake of my EE career, but since I > was just starting out on projects with way to small budgets there was no > chance of switching to anything else. > > 200+ version releases over 3 years later, I haven't found a bug in > awhile, but I've also moved on to AVR. Wow, I do not know that (I do not use CCS, now I only use C18 for my learning of PIC18 and USB). 200+ version is certainly a symptom of bug-ridden software. Maybe they are better now... > It also seems that the company is under new or at least revitalized > management and moving forward. Which company? Atmel? That would be good. Atmel has quite some nice product and I hope they get along well. And in my new job, we do use Atmel 8051s and ARM7 MCUs. Still I just switched one EEPROM to Microchip because Atmel chose to obsolete some 5V EEProm chips. Xiaofan

{Quote hidden}>Bob Axtell <RemoveMEengineerspam_OUTKILLspamcotse.net> wrote: > >Per Linne wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I use CCS' MachX.Consider it to be class 3. >> >> I does not need MPLAB to work. >> I has a "start programming" button on it. >> It automatically identifies the chip you put in it. >> (Provided the chip belongs to the identifiable ones.) >> It has ICP connector. >> It can double as an ICD. >> It has variable VDD. >> It is USB-powered. >> It is in a nice box. >> It integrates with CCS' IDE, which I think is >> far better than MPLAB (with the exception that >> it doesn't support my MPLAB ICE 2000). >> >> I love it. >> >> PerL >> >> >I like DIY Electronics' K182 and K128, no MMPLAB needed. It doesn't >support many recent PIC devices. But it can stand alone as a programmer, >and is VERY cheap. > >--Bob A I have the K128 it's been a fairly reliable programmer the problem is the supported devices I was looking forward to the new software plans under development for it and would have spent some money upgrading On the website it mentions Bob Axtel is working hard on it (was that you?) but nothing materialized I think product development has stopped. I had to resort to buying a ICD2 clone for my modest budget this is the most bang for the buck. Peter van Hoof

Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> 200+ version releases over 3 years later, I haven't found a bug in >> awhile, but I've also moved on to AVR. > > Wow, I do not know that (I do not use CCS, now I only use C18 for my > learning of PIC18 and USB). 200+ version is certainly a symptom of > bug-ridden software. Maybe they are better now... It's been exactly this that drove me away many years ago. <http://www.ccsinfo.com/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=71> "CCS releases a new version of the compiler approximately every 10 days [...]" <http://www.ccsinfo.com/devices.php?page=versioninfo> No dates on the versions. Gerhard

Russell, On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:31:38 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote: > > If I have to CRAFT my code to suit the compiler than I > > won't use it... Unless there is NO alternatives. > > Absolutely! > Any compiler that demands that you code in C is an utter no no !!!!! > :-) ROFL! My feelings exactly... Among the myriad of programmers that I have is one of the PICkit2 clones, made by Sure Electronics - the one with the PCB between two pieces of perspex - they're available on eBay for about US$25. It seems to work OK including accepting a download of the latest firmware, except for one aspect: it doesn't respond to changes of Vdd setting in the software - the PICkit2 software allows turning Vdd on and off, and varying it from 2.5V to 5 (or 5.5?)V. Proper PICkit2s do as they're told, but whenever the box is ticked the clone passes through whatever voltage the USB port is supplying regardless of the software setting. Has anyone else seen this? I wonder if mine is faulty, or if it's a bit of the design that they omitted? Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England