The world is going to SMT... not news.  I took a similar route, using 
the EPIC PIC programmer w/40-pin ZIF socket, that works for awhile but 
eventually one wants to or has to go SMT.

What I wound up doing to avoid the SMT socket expense and to just move 
forward/up design-wise is to do everything in-circuit, with a little 
adapter I rigged up to go from the ICD2 to a 5-pin .1" header (just the 
holes for production, no pins) that I use for every PIC design.

For some client work involving PICs the ICD2 can't program, I rigged up 
a cable to go from the picstart to the said boards which had different 
ICSP connectors.  The cable is a 40-pin socket on one end (plugs into 
picstart's ZIF), wires on power/gnd/VPP/PGC/PGD socket pins to correct 
pin on ICSP connector.  If the circuit on the board is right - basically 
10K from MCLR/VPP to +5V or +3.3 or whatever - the picstart doesn't know 
that it isn't a DIP in its socket.

Caveat - make the cable short, like 1' if possible, for noise reasons. 
Tempermental the programming/debugging setup is with PICs.  It is 
especially bad when debugging with the ICD2.

Caveat2 - always have the board with the PIC to program be powered up, 
don't try to power it from the picstart plus.  Another tempermental mess 
of sometimes working, sometimes not, pull hair out why doesn't it work 
frustration.

So I suggest - choose some sort of ICSP header for this project and 
future ones, and make said cable.  DIPs are only useful for solderless 
breadboard projects or when a design has to be solderable by semitrained 
"solder monkeys" (aka geeky non EE friends).

Good luck!
J


digitaladdictions wrote:

>      While I do have a 4 year degree in Electronic and Communications
> Engineering Tech I only had one MCU class and that was using a HC11,
> if I recall right, and programing it in HEX with some extremely old
> trainer. On top of that I have always considered myself more of a
> computer hacker/geek than a hardware hacker/geek. So perhaps I am just
> missing something.
>     
>      I recently graduated with my BS but feel I don't have a very good
> practical knowledge of real world implementation (doing laplace
> transforms to get transfer functions doesn't really seem to help much
> in most practical electronics). I decided I would work on various
> projects including some mcu work with PICs to try to help remedy this
> before moving onto a Masters. After getting fed up with the numerous
> DIY ICSP programmers on the web, I decided to spring for a PICstart
> Plus today (wish I would of did this from the start as I spent more
> messing around with "cheap" alternatives). I would like to experiment
> with the rfPICs and purchased a pair only to realize  that I got SSOP
> packages. So I look for adapters for the PICstart and noticed that
> they are going for like $130 to $200. Am I missing something here or
> aren't adapters basically just a bunch of wires connecting the pins of
> one connector to the equivalent pins of the other connector. The
> rfPICs do support ICSP so wouldn't it be allot smarter to just make
> one yourself. But like I said perhaps I am just missing something, do
> these adapters require firmware to make them work(convert voltages or
> something), or offer some other advantage I am not seeing.  Perhaps
> the connector itself is just really expensive I don't know.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Justin Derleth
> 
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist