Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Robert Rolf wrote:
> 
>>They obsoleted the ICD1 for no apparent reason.
> 
> You mean other than it's obsolete?

There is no good reason to abandon products when the ONLY
requirement to keep them useful is a firmware update.

>>They dynamically change the firmware in the ICD2 when chosen chip
>>family or mode (debug/program) is changed, so there is no reason why
>>they couldn't do the same thing for the ICD1 if they really needed to.
> 
> There may well be a good reason.  The ICD1 is very old.  It's quite
> possible, even likely, that it doesn't have a flash part inside.

The earliest version's didn't. The newer versions did.
16F876 instead of a '73.

MPLAB 5.x supported an 'update firmware' command. Trivial to
burn the new code into a new flash chip and upgrade your old ICD1.
Eventually they came out with a firmware version that allowed
16F87xA parts to be programmed as non A parts. They could have
also upgraded MPLAB to support the new algorithms for the newer
parts.

>  If I
> remember right, it's at least as old as the Picstart+ which used a 17C44
> inside. 

It did. Took me all of 5 minutes to upgrade to the flashable version.

>>How many thousands of ICD1's were obsoleted when MPLAB 6 came out?
>  
> None, because nobody took away MPLAB 5.  The old versions of MPLAB and the
> ICD1 continue to do everything they previously did.

True. But they could ALSO have fully supported the newer -A series chips
with the ICD1 since the only significant change was the
programming algorithm. MPLAB 6 & 7 COULD have continued to support
ICD1 if they had wanted to. I doubt that the command stream is
that different from the ICD2.

I'll say it again. ICSP is ICSP. 4 wires banged appropriately.
It's not THAT hard to update the ICD1 firmware/software to make it
REMAIN useful with the newest chips. The ICD2 clones out there
show that the hardware is substatially the same except for the
USB<->serial convertor and the switchable circuit power mode.

>  Microchip made a
> decision that the ICD1 wasn't up to the task of handling the newer chips,

On what basis do you make this claim? ICSP is ICSP....
The ICD1 is a nice little programmer and COULD have had a much longer
life if Microchip had wanted it to.

> and USB capability was long overdue anyway.

And which is implemented with a USB to serial chip internally
so there is no great speed advantage.

As I understand it, ICD1 was not designed/ manufactured by Microchip.
The ICD2 is, and occupies 3 times the desk area. Politics over engineering,
as usual.

>>Unfortunately their simulator does NOT emulate serial ports
> It was my understanding it did, although I haven't tried to use that feature
> yet.

It does NOT support interrupts, which is an issue for my particular
projects.

> I only use MPLAB for debugging.  While it's got its share of annoyances, it
> is constantly improving and is a very effective tool for getting the job
> done.  I particularly like how the simulator, the ICD2, the ICE2000 and the
> ICE4000 have the same debugging interface despite the vastly different
> underlying structure.

I also like the newer MPLAB interface. I am just pissed off that they
needlessly obsoleted the ICD1. I HATE premeditated waste, particularly
when it is so easy to avoid.

Robert

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist