Xiaofan writes:

>> 1. True hardware emulator
>> 2. ICD/ICD2
>> 3. Serial bootloader
>
> I've used #1 and #2. I think #1 does help a lot. And I am using
> the ICD2 to help my design now. I can not use #3 since the chip
> I used does not support bootloader function. Take note all the
> "standard flash" PICs does not support bootloader. This may
> or may not be a limitation for the hobbyists though.
>
> #3 also uses pins you want to use as well.

Not if you use the usart as a usart.

> As much as I see your points, I think your give the impression
> that #3 is better than #1 and #2. I think that is wrong. If
> one can afford an ICE2000/ICE4000 and the processor modules,
> by all means go and get it. It will help a lot. An ICD2 is
> one of the best investment for PIC development at its money.

I have an ICE and it sits on the shelf. I hate it. I have an ICD and an
ICD2. Same thing.

> Even though I agree to have a bootloader in certain cases is
> good, I do not think it is such an important thing and is
> not necessary in many cases. For newbies, it complicates the
> developing and debugging process.

But since you have not used a bootloader, you have not had the chance to
see how useful it can be, even when one already has an ICD or ICE.

If Microchip made a faster and more reliable ICD that might change my
opinion somewhat. But once I started using a bootloader, my productivity
went up.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

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