John The business of programming a PIC or communicating with it is pretty simple, at least from the hardware side. The tough part is in the software, and most of the clones use Microchip's software, so I wouldn't expect them to be all that different, really. There is one design out there that requires you to etch a fairly intricate board, that might be a little tougher but lead to a more aesthetic result. Another basically expects you to wire something together on a perfboard. Probably easier but not as pretty. What do YOU value? Some of the simpler ones are serial only. Since I would expect the ICD2 to work with a USB to serial converter (unlike a Tait-style programmer), this might not be such a big issue. But serial ports are becoming scarce. One thing I would note. A lot of people seem to have trouble getting the ICD2 installed. I did, and based on the Microchip ICD2 forum, I had a lot less trouble than many. Although I don't believe there is any operational difference between the real thing and the clones, you might consider the extra bucks for the real thing, if only for the added confidence when you are going through the install battles. A lot of people's problems seem to be around the USB drivers, so again, this would make me a little squeamish about the USB-Serial converter idea. On the other hand, if you do have a real serial port, the serial port install seems to be less of an issue. I do suspect that if one starts with a clean computer with no trace of MPLAB, and follows Microchip's instructions TO THE LETTER, the ICD2 will work just fine. Most of the problems seem to stem from left over bits of USB drivers or people taking "harmless" shortcuts. Well, that and programming cables too long (the cable needs to be really short!) Just some thoughts... --McD ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nall" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: [PIC]: Which is best ICD2 clone? >I have seen several references to an ICD2 clone, and think that I might try >and build one. But googling "ICD2 clone" appears to indicate that there >have been several such devices produced by various and sundry people. >Which is good, of course, and I feel sure that each and every person who >did the development feels that his (or hers) is the "best." But is there a >concensus among this group, which I consider the most authoritative, as to >which would win the competition? Although several factors could go into >it, I would consider the main criteria to be how solid and bug-free the >result is. > > Thanks for the help. > > John > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist