I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
the pickit and it just works.
I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
(paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
figure out what it is.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <spam_OUTforrestcTakeThisOuTimach.com> wrote:
> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
> the pickit and it just works.
>
> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
> figure out what it is.
>
> Did I miss something?
ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
and debugging).
If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
capability. In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
programming software: pk2cmd).
On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <forrestcKILLspamimach.com> wrote:
>> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
>> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
>> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
>> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
>> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
>> the pickit and it just works.
>>
>> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
>> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
>> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
>> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
>> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
>> figure out what it is.
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>
> ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
> debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
> will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
> and debugging).
>
> If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
> as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
> capability.
Here I mean that PICkit 2 seems to be more reliable
than ICD 2. But YMMV. Technically they are basically
the same in terms of debugging capability. And you
do not need to switch firmware when you use PICkit
2 when changing to different family of PICs.
> In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
> always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
> power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
> of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
> not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
> programming software: pk2cmd).
>
> On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
> ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
> debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
>
> Xiaofan
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspam_OUTTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <forrestcspam_OUTimach.com> wrote:
>>> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
>>> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
>>> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
>>> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
>>> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
>>> the pickit and it just works.
>>>
>>> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
>>> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
>>> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
>>> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
>>> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
>>> figure out what it is.
>>>
>>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
>> debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
>> will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
>> and debugging).
>>
>> If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
>> as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
>> capability.
>
> Here I mean that PICkit 2 seems to be more reliable
> than ICD 2. But YMMV. Technically they are basically
> the same in terms of debugging capability. And you
> do not need to switch firmware when you use PICkit
> 2 when changing to different family of PICs.
One more thing, you can use two PICkit 2 to debug
2 PICs. You can not do that with ICD 2.
>> In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
>> always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
>> power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
>> of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
>> not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
>> programming software: pk2cmd).
>>
>> On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
>> ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
>> debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
>>
>> Xiaofan
>>
>
>I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip
>ICD's), and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more
>likely) since I really like the way it operates. Like it just
>works, on pretty much everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V,
>ICD-powered, project-powered, etc. etc. etc.. If I'm having a
>problem with one of the other ICD's I grab the pickit and it just
>works.
>
>I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
>(paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime
>I'm using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that
>there is something better about the ICD2, but from everything I
>read, and especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit,
>I sure can't figure out what it is.
>
>Did I miss something?
I suspect that much has been learnt from the ICD2 problems, which has helped
the development of the Pickit2 and later ICD devices. However before getting
a Pickit3 I suggest you look at the ICD3, which has a High Speed USB
interface. I don't know if the Pickit3 has HS or FS USB, but I am finding
the ICD3 'blindingly fast' compared to an ICD2 for doing programming and
debugging.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Alan B. Pearce <@spam@Alan.B.PearceKILLspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I suspect that much has been learnt from the ICD2 problems, which has helped
> the development of the Pickit2 and later ICD devices. However before getting
> a Pickit3 I suggest you look at the ICD3, which has a High Speed USB
> interface. I don't know if the Pickit3 has HS or FS USB, but I am finding
> the ICD3 'blindingly fast' compared to an ICD2 for doing programming and
> debugging.
PICkit 3 is using full speed USB. It is not at the same league as ICD 3.
ICD 3 is basically Real ICE lite.
That maybe something related to the PIC18F2550/4550 silicon design and Microchip USB software stack.
Somehow there is always a slight opportunity the whole chip is whipped out (sometime, just the flash memory, sometime, flash+configuration bits) when user is plugging the device to the PC USB port.
Before PICkit2 V2.4x release, this seems happened in a high frequency. After V2.5x release, it got better. For PICkit2, this issue has been claimed fixed. The real reason still is not clear and not verified.
When one PICKit 2 is dead, you can always using another one (or any other type of PIC programmer, such as ICD2, ICD3, etc) bring it back by re-programming the chip. This is the reason some people recommend to have at least two PICkit 2 for safety reason. (For the low price, and the good performance when it is working, it worth the investment.)
Apparently, this happens to user who use Microchip USB stacks for their own application too. Check Microchip forum for more reference.
I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
the pickit and it just works.
I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
(paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
figure out what it is.
Consider the price and its hardware capability, ICD3 is just another story.
If you don't think the budget is an issue and have the time to wait potential software bugs/glitches to be fixed. The ICD3 is a good bet just for its speed.
> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
> the pickit and it just works.
>
> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
> figure out what it is.
>
> Did I miss something?
ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
and debugging).
If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
capability. In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
programming software: pk2cmd).
On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
The PICkit 2 is designed later than ICD2, so it might have "learned" some lessons from ICD2.
The ICD3 is a strip-down version of RealICE.
And There is a high curiosity/desire for the PICKit3 (which will be available this month) for more improvement from PICKit 2.
Apparently, the PICKit2 and ICD2 has some common features. So will be the new PICkit 3 when comparing with PICkit2 and ICD2.
We will see what is going on shortly.
Functionally, they all working on most PICs, the end-user need making some decision on the minor differences.
I personally now own a ICD2 (this probably the last ICD2 I got exchanged from Microchip free exchange program, I cannot remember how many ICD2 I have damaged. It wold cost a fortune without the free exchange program.) and some enhanced versions of PICKIT 2 (designed by my team with Full PICkit 2 circuit, some unique feature for programmer-to-go. On the new BB0703+ family, a USB buck/boost power circuit for reliable +5V supply is also added).
________________________________
From: Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancEraseME.....gmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <EraseMEpiclistmit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:56:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PIC] PicKit vs ICD
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <RemoveMEforrestcspam_OUTKILLspamimach.com> wrote:
>> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
>> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
>> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
>> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
>> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
>> the pickit and it just works.
>>
>> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
>> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
>> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
>> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
>> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
>> figure out what it is.
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>
> ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
> debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
> will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
> and debugging).
>
> If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
> as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
> capability.
Here I mean that PICkit 2 seems to be more reliable
than ICD 2. But YMMV. Technically they are basically
the same in terms of debugging capability. And you
do not need to switch firmware when you use PICkit
2 when changing to different family of PICs.
> In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
> always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
> power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
> of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
> not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
> programming software: pk2cmd).
>
> On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
> ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
> debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
>
> Xiaofan
>
True. The PICkit 2 team is the best I have ever known from Microchip. They are really open-mind and always listen to the end-user. That's why you can list so many unique features.
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancSTOPspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <spamBeGoneforrestcSTOPspamEraseMEimach.com> wrote:
>>> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
>>> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
>>> really like the way it operates. Like it just works, on pretty much
>>> everything I've tried... 3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
>>> etc. etc.. If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
>>> the pickit and it just works.
>>>
>>> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
>>> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
>>> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
>>> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
>>> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
>>> figure out what it is.
>>>
>>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
>> debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
>> will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
>> and debugging).
>>
>> If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
>> as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
>> capability.
>
> Here I mean that PICkit 2 seems to be more reliable
> than ICD 2. But YMMV. Technically they are basically
> the same in terms of debugging capability. And you
> do not need to switch firmware when you use PICkit
> 2 when changing to different family of PICs.
One more thing, you can use two PICkit 2 to debug
2 PICs. You can not do that with ICD 2.
>> In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
>> always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
>> power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
>> of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
>> not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
>> programming software: pk2cmd).
>>
>> On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
>> ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
>> debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.
>>
>> Xiaofan
>>
>
> Apparently, the PICKit2 and ICD2 has some common features.
Hardware wise the pickit2 and ICD2 are pretty different. The ICD2 is a
dual processor design with one processor (A cypress chip in older
models, a USB pic in newer models) dedicated to USB and another
processor (one of the big PIC16 chips) doing the actual debugging of the
target.
The pickit2 OTOH uses a single USB pic.
IIRC realice is FPGA based and it wouldn't suprise me if the ICD3 is as
well.
>
> One more thing, you can use two PICkit 2 to debug
> 2 PICs. You can not do that with ICD 2.
>
This one sounds interesting.
But I have no idea how to do this on linux, IIRC pk2cmd has nothing in
commandline to distinguish which pickit should it work with.
I am not speaking about debugging, just about programming, when
building both sides of some system with communication line in between.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:25 PM, KPL <KILLspamkpl.listesspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
>
> This one sounds interesting.
> But I have no idea how to do this on linux, IIRC pk2cmd has nothing in
> commandline to distinguish which pickit should it work with.
Yes there is. Check out the -S option. I have used that option under
Linux for a while. You need to Assign the unit ID first with the
-N option (one by one). After that you can use -SUnit1 and
-SUnit2 to use the two PICkit 2 programmers.
> I am not speaking about debugging, just about programming, when
> building both sides of some system with communication line in between.
>
>
> Yes there is. Check out the -S option. I have used that option under
> Linux for a while. You need to Assign the unit ID first with the
> -N option (one by one). After that you can use -SUnit1 and
> -SUnit2 to use the two PICkit 2 programmers.
OK, thanks. Seems my pk2cmd is too old, it does not show that option,
will have to upgrade.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, KPL <EraseMEkpl.listesEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes there is. Check out the -S option. I have used that option under
>> Linux for a while. You need to Assign the unit ID first with the
>> -N option (one by one). After that you can use -SUnit1 and
>> -SUnit2 to use the two PICkit 2 programmers.
>
> OK, thanks. Seems my pk2cmd is too old, it does not show that option,
> will have to upgrade.
>
> Actually programming fails too often too.
>
That should not be the case. Maybe you are really using an
old version. You should download from Micochip website. http://www.microchip.com/pickit2
>>
>> Yes there is. Check out the -S option. I have used that option under
>> Linux for a while. You need to Assign the unit ID first with the
>> -N option (one by one). After that you can use -SUnit1 and
>> -SUnit2 to use the two PICkit 2 programmers.
>
> OK, thanks. Seems my pk2cmd is too old, it does not show that option,
> will have to upgrade.
>
> Actually programming fails too often too.
>
That should not be the case. Maybe you are really using an
old version. You should download from Micochip website. http://www.microchip.com/pickit2
imach.com> wrote:
