>No it's not. In fact it's exactly the opposite. Why doesn't every desktop
>computer then have 2 or more CPUs, one for infrastructure and the other
>for actual work then?


Well they do actually Geoff. Theres one in the Keyboard, theres one in the
RTC, theres one in each disk controller..... :)

If these are not "infrastructure" serving the main CPU, what is? You cannot
get at them to program them without going through a lot of hassle.

I see a real need for an extra processor on the board, beyond any target
processors, to handle serial interface with the PC, and deal with the
programming/ICD side of the operation, but cannot be touched as a target
processor. The cost of including a 16F876/SO for this purpose to keep things
simple for the hobbyist must be minimal. Having ICD capabilities available
will be a whole gigantic leap for the beginner instead of having to surmise
and experiment/crash and burn to find out why his code does not work.

Sure the ICD as implemented in the ICD 1/16F87x is not great in that it
stops the peripherals when it stops execution, but it is still in another
league than the crash and burn cycle if you cannot figure what is going on.
I will be interested to see if the ICD2 is any faster or better in this
respect.

I have not got through the whole of the weekends mails yet, so may have more
to say later.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu