> Yeah, I tried that for a while - borrowed a programmer from a
> friend and
> programmed several PICs w/a bootloader. Ultimately though, I
> decided to get
> one. As my needs changed and I started using new PICs, it became too
> inconvenient for me not to have a programmer.

I agree with yoy on this, a bootloader has its use when you start using
PICs, but after the second or third PIC one should seriously consider a
programmer. But some people might never use more than one PIC (or rather
never achieve a real use of that first one), and for those a bootloader
is definitely cheaper.

Also in a class situation a bootloader makes sense: one programmer, and
for each student a PIC with bootloader (hardware can be very cheap). And
for updating firmware in-the-field.

> > only a sissy bootloader needs ports or pins :)
>
> Yes - I agree. I'm pursuing this concept of a bootloader that
> doesn't use any pins, in my spare time. It runs on ESP.

I prefer a more down-to-earth approach: google for ZPL and you will find
my bootloader that uses the /MCLR pin as inteface (no, not limited to
PICs that configure that pin as input - that would be cheating). I guess
that once you know that it can be done you could work it out for
yourself.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.