Searching \ for '[PIC] Getting ICD3 ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=icd
Search entire site for: 'Getting ICD3 ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Getting ICD3 ?'
2008\11\18@033527 by John Chung

picon face
Hi,

I have heard many good reports on ICD3. The most notable was the programming speed on the high end MCU from Microchip. Anymore added features compared to ICD2? Are you going to get it for Christmas?

John



     

2008\11\18@035055 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
Corrected Tag

>Anymore added features compared to ICD2?

It is supposed to have rugged drivers for connecting to the target, instead
of the less than rugged ones used in the ICD2.

>Are you going to get it for Christmas?

On order, due to arrive in the UK around 24 Nov. The Explorer 16 and
associated PIMs arrived yesterday.

2008\11\21@081955 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Are you going to get it for Christmas?

Well, mine has arrived in the UK, and I haven't even started on the Advent
calendar yet ... ;))

2008\11\21@094611 by John Chung

picon face
Hi Alan,

How is ICD3 performing? For Christmas I can only think of ICD3.... Not sure of a programmable power supply..

Options options.
John


--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Alan B. Pearce <spam_OUTAlan.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: Alan B. Pearce <.....Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspam@spam@stfc.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [PIC] Getting ICD3 ?
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
> Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 5:49 PM
> >Are you going to get it for Christmas?
>
> Well, mine has arrived in the UK, and I haven't even
> started on the Advent
> calendar yet ... ;))
>
> --

2008\11\21@100839 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>How is ICD3 performing?

Umm, don't know yet, plugged it in and installed the driver, that's about as
far as I have got. Still got a heap of paper to read to learn about USB
programming.

Currently ing at the 24FJ256GB110 PIM not having any useful USB accessible
items in the test software it comes loaded with. Looks like to play with
that side of things one has to do your own interface to see anything of that
work.

Still have to do something along those lines anyway, but it would have been
nice to have something that just plugged in and displayed the relevant bits
it displays on the LCD, on a computer screen.

2008\11\21@103437 by John Chung

picon face
I just completed the USB feedback on Circuit Cellar. It is a very good piece of tutorial there. I have learnt USB from basic knowledge to firmware programming. I ran the low pin count USB module tutorial. I did not have the chance to play with the bigger PIC.

John


--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Alan B. Pearce <.....Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspam.....stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\11\21@165825 by olin piclist

face picon face
John Chung wrote:
> How is ICD3 performing? For Christmas I can only think of ICD3....

Why would you want a ICD3 over a RealIce?  As far as I can tell, the RealIce
is better in just about all respects.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\11\21@175438 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
Well the RealIce seems to be about 4x as expensive...

-Pete

On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\11\21@205948 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Alan B. Pearce
<@spam@Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Currently ing at the 24FJ256GB110 PIM not having any useful USB accessible
> items in the test software it comes loaded with. Looks like to play with
> that side of things one has to do your own interface to see anything of that
> work.

Did you buy the Explorer 16 board and the PICtail+ USB board? If
not, the USB PIM itself is rather useless.

Xiaofan

2008\11\23@143651 by Stefano Vanzo

flavicon
face
Does someone know if it is pin compatible with the ICD2 cable.
Will it just plug in the same socket on the Explore 16 ?

Stefano
mine should be here in a couple of days


Xiaofan Chen ha scritto:
{Quote hidden}

2008\11\23@190351 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Stefano Vanzo <RemoveMEpicsTakeThisOuTspamvanzo.it> wrote:
> Does someone know if it is pin compatible with the ICD2 cable.
> Will it just plug in the same socket on the Explore 16 ?

Yes. You can check out the help file within MPLAB 8.15.

Xiaofan

2008\11\24@034810 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> Did you buy the Explorer 16 board and the PICtail+ USB board? If
> not, the USB PIM itself is rather useless.

Yes, I have both, my surprise is that there doesn't seem to be a USB
application in the code that is supplied already programmed into the PIM, so
one can verify the setup before 'hitting the road' with your own project.

2008\11\24@062913 by Hasan Khan

flavicon
face
I was working with a small programmer which I bought from kitsrus.com.  I used it a few times to learn PIC and now I was ready to do some commercial work.  I ordered an ICD2.  A few weeks after I received my ICD2, microchip released ICD3.  I am totally bummed now.  I hope they don't obsolete ICD2 anytime soon.

2008\11\24@073756 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Hasan Khan <spamBeGonehasanspamBeGonespamkhansden.com> wrote:
> I was working with a small programmer which I bought from kitsrus.com.  I used
> it a few times to learn PIC and now I was ready to do some commercial work.
> I ordered an ICD2.  A few weeks after I received my ICD2, microchip released
> ICD3.  I am totally bummed now.  I hope they don't obsolete ICD2 anytime soon.

No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger
dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are
doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine.

Xiaofan

2008\11\24@092044 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:37 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Hasan Khan <TakeThisOuThasanEraseMEspamspam_OUTkhansden.com> wrote:
> > I was working with a small programmer which I bought from kitsrus.com.  I used
> > it a few times to learn PIC and now I was ready to do some commercial work.
> > I ordered an ICD2.  A few weeks after I received my ICD2, microchip released
> > ICD3.  I am totally bummed now.  I hope they don't obsolete ICD2 anytime soon.
>
> No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger
> dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are
> doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine.

Frankly Xiaofan I've seen you say this multiple times, and I just don't
agree.

The ICD2 works fine with the 16bit PICs (DSPIC and PIC24F). As long as
you don't go to crazy with what you're watching it's more then speedy
enough to be very useful. I haven't personally hooked mine up to a PIC32
so for that one I can't say.

Hasan, the ICD2 is a wonderful tool, you haven't made a mistake. The
ICD3 is supposedly faster and more robust, but for me I'll stick with
the ICD2. TTYL

2008\11\24@183641 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4spamTakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote:
>> No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger
>> dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are
>> doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine.
>
> Frankly Xiaofan I've seen you say this multiple times, and I just don't
> agree.
>
> The ICD2 works fine with the 16bit PICs (DSPIC and PIC24F). As long as
> you don't go to crazy with what you're watching it's more then speedy
> enough to be very useful. I haven't personally hooked mine up to a PIC32
> so for that one I can't say.

Try it and you will know how bad it is for PIC32.

I also tried it with bigger PIC24. It is really slow to me.

Xiaofan

2008\11\25@074259 by Martin

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Herbert Graf <mailinglist4EraseMEspam.....farcite.net> wrote:
>>> No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger
>>> dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are
>>> doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine.
>> Frankly Xiaofan I've seen you say this multiple times, and I just don't
>> agree.
>>
>> The ICD2 works fine with the 16bit PICs (DSPIC and PIC24F). As long as
>> you don't go to crazy with what you're watching it's more then speedy
>> enough to be very useful. I haven't personally hooked mine up to a PIC32
>> so for that one I can't say.
>
> Try it and you will know how bad it is for PIC32.
>
> I also tried it with bigger PIC24. It is really slow to me.
>
> Xiaofan

I second that.
It's clear that the ICD2 wasn't designed with the larger parts in mind.
ICD3 uses a full speed (or high speed, doesn't matter..) USB interface
that will allow it to work much quicker. While the ICD2 programs my
18F4525 very quickly, it is very slow on my PIC24 and barely works at
all on my PIC32.

-
Martin

2008\11\25@101803 by Hasan Khan

flavicon
face
Well, as far as I am concerned, this is not an issue.  For the kind of projects I am going to do, I think I can get by with PIC 16 and 18.  By the time I progress to higher level PICs, I'll be able to justify getting an ICD3.



{Original Message removed}

2008\11\25@113302 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 07:36 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Herbert Graf <EraseMEmailinglist4spamfarcite.net> wrote:
> >> No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger
> >> dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are
> >> doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine.
> >
> > Frankly Xiaofan I've seen you say this multiple times, and I just don't
> > agree.
> >
> > The ICD2 works fine with the 16bit PICs (DSPIC and PIC24F). As long as
> > you don't go to crazy with what you're watching it's more then speedy
> > enough to be very useful. I haven't personally hooked mine up to a PIC32
> > so for that one I can't say.
>
> Try it and you will know how bad it is for PIC32.
>
> I also tried it with bigger PIC24. It is really slow to me.

Well FWIW I don't have a PIC32 to try. To be honest, I've been slowly
drifting away from PICs, shame really.

As for the PIC24, I recently did some work with it and while slower then
an 18F part, the ICD2 was still more then usable.

I suppose it's a perception thing. In my field I'm used to compiles
taking half a day, the ICD2 seems very speedy in it's operations
compared to that.

TTYL

2008\11\26@042244 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4EraseMEspamEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote:
> As for the PIC24, I recently did some work with it and while slower then
> an 18F part, the ICD2 was still more then usable.
>
> I suppose it's a perception thing. In my field I'm used to compiles
> taking half a day, the ICD2 seems very speedy in it's operations
> compared to that.

I see. So you have huge programs. Even the Linux kernel
can be build less than 1 hour now (I have not done this
for a while).

Xiaofan

2008\11\26@061406 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 26, 2008, at 1:22 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> In my field I'm used to compiles taking half a day, the ICD2 seems  
>> very speedy in it's operations compared to that.
>
> I see. So you have huge programs.

Yeah; He's probably in the same business as I am.  It wouldn't be so  
bad if after the 1/2 day compile, everything worked, instead of  
discovering that someone checked in bad code and now you have to wait  
for them to fix it, update your copy, and do the whole thing AGAIN.

> Even the Linux kernel can be build less than 1 hour now

The linux kernel is small.  Consider building EVERYTHING for a modern  
desktop linux system, including several of the larger specialized apps  
(and ALL the normal little apps!)  Or binaries with 50MB of code...

BillW

2008\11\26@072548 by Vanzo Stefano

flavicon
face
Hi
Just for how care's......
I just got it and first test on PIC24FJ128GA006 with a Program memory
26871 bytes

programming in debug mode

ICD 2 ---> 52 seconds
ICD 3 ---> 4 seconds

wow... it's fast

Stefano

2008\11\26@083212 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Just for how care's......
>I just got it and first test on PIC24FJ128GA006 with a Program memory
>26871 bytes
>
>programming in debug mode
>
>ICD 2 ---> 52 seconds
>ICD 3 ---> 4 seconds
>
>wow... it's fast

Hmm, I would hope so - the active internals of the ICD3 are an FPGA and a
PIC33, instead of an 18F. The FPGA is a Xilinx Spartan range, which I think
is a RAM device and have an external EEPROM to store the code. Certainly
MPLAB reports the FPGA code revision.

2008\11\26@101457 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:25:08 +0100, Vanzo Stefano wrote:
> Hi
> Just for how care's......
> I just got it and first test on PIC24FJ128GA006 with a Program memory
> 26871 bytes
>
> programming in debug mode
>
> ICD 2 ---> 52 seconds
> ICD 3 ---> 4 seconds
>
> wow... it's fast

How is it for debugging speed? (Single stepping, updating watch windows,
displaying registers, etc.) That's always been my biggest gripe with
MPLAB/ICD2. Of the dozen or so inexpensive serial debuggers I have for
various MPUs, that combination is the slowest and most cumbersome. I rarely
use it because of that.

I would think it should be much faster as well since the same serial data
transfer mechanism is used to both program and debug.

It looks like the ICD3 is a step in the right direction.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

2008\11\26@103834 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 17:22 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4spam_OUTspamKILLspamfarcite.net> wrote:
> > As for the PIC24, I recently did some work with it and while slower then
> > an 18F part, the ICD2 was still more then usable.
> >
> > I suppose it's a perception thing. In my field I'm used to compiles
> > taking half a day, the ICD2 seems very speedy in it's operations
> > compared to that.
>
> I see. So you have huge programs. Even the Linux kernel
> can be build less than 1 hour now (I have not done this
> for a while).

Actually they aren't programs, it's HDL work, but yes, they're huge, and
no matter how fast a machine we get, no matter the number of cores, the
designs just keep getting bigger! :)

That and my FPGA work. Sometimes I can get away with 10 minute compile
+P&R, but often it can reach an hour for a simple change.

TTYL



'[PIC] Getting ICD3 ?'
2008\12\04@015716 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4TakeThisOuTspamspamfarcite.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 07:36 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> Try it and you will know how bad it is for PIC32.
>>
>> I also tried it with bigger PIC24. It is really slow to me.
>
> Well FWIW I don't have a PIC32 to try. To be honest, I've been slowly
> drifting away from PICs, shame really.
>
> As for the PIC24, I recently did some work with it and while slower then
> an 18F part, the ICD2 was still more then usable.
>
> I suppose it's a perception thing. In my field I'm used to compiles
> taking half a day, the ICD2 seems very speedy in it's operations
> compared to that.

For PIC32, ICD 2 currently is really not usable. Please refer to
the following threads.

The poster has chosen to go for ICD 3:
http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=387649

Microchip recommends the user to go for ICD 3 or Real ICE.
http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=383797

http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=387475

Quote from the above thread of Microchip support's answer.
"Microchip support:
When you select PIC32 device from MPLAB IDE >
Configure > Select device, the yellow LED is observed
in front of the MPLAB ICD 2 debugger. This suggests
that the ICD 2 is in the beta testing version for the
PIC32 devices. Therefore, it may not work correctly.
Also, ICD 2 is slower for the PIC32 devices.

You can use MPLAB ICD 3 or MPAB REAL ICE to
debug the PIC32 devices."

Slow is one thing, buggy and unreliable are more
serious problems. Hopefully Microchip will try
to fix the bugs of ICD 2 more proactively now that
they have the ICD 3 out.

Xiaofan

2008\12\04@030638 by Steve Smith

flavicon
face
I have to say my icd3 arrived yesterday ! and although I am only doing an
app for a f690 at the moment its rapid compared to the icd2 and it doesn't
keep locking the USB up like the icd 2 used to....

Ns most important..... its got a blue active led !!!! that's so bright it
spills down the other two light pipes... so there is a redish blue on the
status and a greenish blue on the power....


Steve

{Original Message removed}

2008\12\04@041115 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Hopefully Microchip will try to fix the bugs of
>ICD 2 more proactively now that they have the ICD 3 out.

Not sure they would worry.

1. The ICD2 is known to have problems with buffers dying on the ICD
interface. The ICD3 is claimed to be more rugged in this area.

2. The ICD3 is much faster - the MPLAB help claims it runs at High Speed,
where the 18F USB chip in the ICD2 can only run at Full Speed, so why fix a
slower device?

3. Because of (2), and also the slower processor speed, the ICD2 will always
be considerably slower, whatever it is doing, be it programming or
debugging. Peoples perception of how 'good' a device is will be dominated by
speed (just like speed cameras are used as a dominant way of reducing
accidents), no matter how bug free other aspects of the slower device are
compared to the faster but possibly more bug ridden aspects of the faster
device.

2008\12\04@045223 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Alan B. Pearce <EraseMEAlan.B.PearcespamspamspamBeGonestfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Hopefully Microchip will try to fix the bugs of
>>ICD 2 more proactively now that they have the ICD 3 out.
>
> Not sure they would worry.
>
> 1. The ICD2 is known to have problems with buffers dying on the ICD
> interface. The ICD3 is claimed to be more rugged in this area.
>
> 2. The ICD3 is much faster - the MPLAB help claims it runs at High Speed,
> where the 18F USB chip in the ICD2 can only run at Full Speed, so why fix a
> slower device?
>
> 3. Because of (2), and also the slower processor speed, the ICD2 will always
> be considerably slower, whatever it is doing, be it programming or
> debugging. Peoples perception of how 'good' a device is will be dominated by
> speed (just like speed cameras are used as a dominant way of reducing
> accidents), no matter how bug free other aspects of the slower device are
> compared to the faster but possibly more bug ridden aspects of the faster
> device.

They should worry because ICD 2 has a very big user base. The
bad words from these broad user base will damage Microchip's
image and transfer to the gains of Atmel. ;-)

Xiaofan

2008\12\04@094425 by John Chung

picon face
Steve,

In short is it worth buying it? A big note that jumped out of your statement is the USB connection stability! I hate rebooting my PC.


John


--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Steve Smith <RemoveMExygaxKILLspamspamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\12\04@100619 by Steve Smith

flavicon
face
I haven't had to reboot pc from ICD 2 ..... unplug the icd2 and plug it in
another usb port... wait for it to moan about the drivers and then repeat
put it back where it lives and use the connect button that always works for
me....

ICD3
So far so good its done about 9 continuous hours without a crash.... That
beats the ICD2 hands down sometimes its 5 mins before it hangs. Jury's out
til next week... I have to do an f877 at work so I will use it for that and
that will be the acid test....


Steve

{Original Message removed}

2008\12\04@104822 by John Chung

picon face
Please keep us updated after the Jury verdict!

Thanks
John


--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Steve Smith <KILLspamxygaxspamBeGonespamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\12\08@093637 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Xiaofan Chen <spamBeGonexiaofancspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

On the other hand, I am trying a few USB examples with
PIC24FJ256GB110 and ICD 2 works fine. Last year
when I tried ICD 2 with the other PIC24 and it was quite bad.
So there are some progress in this front. Hopefully they
will fix the PIC32 issues soon.

Xiaofan

2008\12\12@075401 by Edson Brusque

picon face
Hello!

> I have to say my icd3 arrived yesterday ! and although I am only doing an
> app for a f690 at the moment its rapid compared to the icd2 and it doesn't
> keep locking the USB up like the icd 2 used to....

    Yes. Mine arrived about 10 days ago and I also noticed that. I'm
just using it with a PIC18F252 and it seens way faster and reliabler
than the ICD2 (that I have but almost haven't used it because it locks a
lot on my laptop computer).

    Next week I'll start with a project that uses a dsPIC33 and I think
it will be very usefull.

    I also liked that when idle, it just pulls down the PGC and PGD
lines with a 4k7 resistor. That way you still can use it for programming
devices that have those lines connected to something (like LCD data
lines). ICD2 doesn't allows that. It seens that the PGC (or PGD, I don't
remember well) is always tied to an enabled output and your device can't
run correctly with it connected if your firmware/hardware uses PGC and PGD.

    Of course, you can't debug (fully) if you use those pins.

> Ns most important..... its got a blue active led !!!! that's so bright it
> spills down the other two light pipes... so there is a redish blue on the
> status and a greenish blue on the power....

    Yes, and it's very annoying. I hate overbright blue LEDs but it
seens that it's a tendency to put them in every new gadget.

    I have an USB audio interface from M-Audio that does have a blue
LED to show it's powered. I had to put a piece of black adesive tape on
it because it was impossible to read anything on it's front panel when
the studio/stage lights were dimm.

    Of course, I've opened my ICD3 and put a piece of white adesive
between the blue LED and it's lightpipe. Now I can see if the status LED
is red or orange.

    Best regards,

    Brusque

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edson Brusque                    Stagetronics Eletro Eletrônicos Ltda
Research and Development                   Blumenau  -  SC  -  Brazil
http://www.ryan.com.br/netiqueta.htm             http://www.citronics.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------


2008\12\12@095532 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
>     Of course, I've opened my ICD3 and put a piece of white adesive
> between the blue LED and it's lightpipe. Now I can see if the status LED
> is red or orange.

So isn't it possible to replace the blue-bright LED to something else which
is not that annoying? I mean by ourself - I doubt if MC would make that
change on future ICD3 runs.

Thanks
Tamas


On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Edson Brusque <TakeThisOuTbrusque.listas.....spamTakeThisOuTgmail.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2008\12\14@113917 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Of course, I've opened my ICD3 and put a piece of white adesive
>between the blue LED and it's lightpipe. Now I can see if the
>status LED is red or orange.

Must do that. I did put some black heatshrink on each light pipe to stop the
blue spilling over into the others.

Might be tempted to see what resistor value the blue LED has, and increase
it, as an alternative to using tape.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...