On 10/22/06, Herbert Graf <mailinglist3@farcite.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 17:04 -0400, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > ICD2 is relatively cheap as well but it is really painful to use for
> > bigger Microchip MCUs like dsPIC33F/PIC24.
>
> Define "painful"? I have never noticed much of a speed difference in the
> usage of the ICD2 when dealing with large dsPIC parts, or small 12F
> parts. Yes, if you don't do things wisely (like leaving tons of watch
> windows open, or the whole SFR window open) then the larger parts WILL
> be slower in use since there's just so much more to update.
>
> I have a feeling most people don't realize how the ICD2 works, and
> simply blame the bigger parts as being "slower" then the smaller parts
> with using the ICD2.

I am not that experienced with large PIC parts. But I have tried the
Explorer 16 demo board with ICD2. Without doing much, just stepping
through the code was very slow. I do not think I was doing stupid
things then but I will check again once I am back in Singapore.

On the other hand, stepping through code of an LPC2148 with a
cheaper parallel port based JTAG debugger is much faster. The process
of stepping through code with JTAG debugger for MSP430 MCUs
and Silicon Labs C8051F parts is much more smoother.

Maybe I am biased but I never think ICD2 is a good debugger. As
a programmer, it is even worse.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist