> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Blick
> 
> 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.

Actually I have used bootloader (tiny bootloader and the USB
bootloader) even though I have not used it at work. I am now 
collecting more information about PIC bootloader. I can
see that bootloader and serial monitor can be very useful.
In fact I will start my dsPIC experiment and one of the first 
thing I want to try is a dsPIC bootloader (I've already
tried one from Daniel Chia). My point of view is still that
all three debugging methods have their pros and cons. I can
see why #3 is more preferred by hobbyists. But if one can
afford to buy an ICD2, that is a good investment. It is a
capable programmer as well as a capable debugger even though
it has its limitations. It will be even useful for PIC18
and dsPIC development. 

Our ICE2000 is on the shelf as well. One of the reason is that
we do not want to buy the processor modules and our program
can be debugged effectively with the ICD2 and a good 
oscilloscope. 
 
> 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.
> 

I think this is a valid criticism to ICD/ICD2. I wish they
could improve the ICD2. Maybe an ICD3 will be better. In fact,
I think there will be alternative debuggers for the new JTAG
equipped PIC24 and dsPIC33. However they are not that suitable
to hobbyists yet due to the lack of DIP packages.

Regards,
Xiaofan

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