On 11/09/06, stef mientki <s.mientki@mailbox.kun.nl> wrote:
>
> If you want to the fastest, you should use a bootloader.
> I can even think of a programmer, that put's in a bootloader first,
> and then let the bootloader program the rest.
> But what the hell are a few seconds, compared to writing the program ?
> Ok it has it's value in "trial-and-error-programming"  ;-)


...and if you program more than one chip (like at some point I would like to
do 100) In the table mentioned earlier indicates, that for example Picstart+
is a very slow programmer, it takes 20s for programming a 12F675: 100*20s=
33.3min while EasyProg needs only 13.6s, that's 100*13.6s = 22.6 -- true,
not much you can save, but bigger the chip the longer it takes to program.

Anyway, why a bootloader performs better than ICSP?

Another completely stupid question: how could you program several PICs
parallel?

Thanks,
Tamas
PS: Olin, your USB programmer is impressive!

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