On 11/2/07, Vitaliy wrote: > Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > Maybe you want to consider PICkit 2 instead. I believe MPLAB 8.0 > > will make PICkit 2 debugging better than now (may not catch > > ICD2, but good enough for 16F/18F). PICkit 2 is already a > > better programmer than ICD2. > > > > Read this page first: > > http://www.microchip.com/pickit2 > > > > Read the following threads: > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=287314 > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=282776 > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=289992 > > I still don't get it. "I like PK2 better, but ICD2 is better for > debugging" -- how is ICD2 better? Right now it supports more chips than PICkit 2. > "Never actually use the PK2 or ICD2 as a debugger." >-- what?! Why not? I use ICD2 for debugging, very happy with it.. I do not use PICs right now at work so no real need for debugging. I did not like quite ICD2 as a debugger last time I tried with dsPIC33 and PIC24 on the Explorer 16 board. It is quite slow. And PICKit 2 will be similar if it supports PIC24/dsPIC33 later. I have not played with Real-ICE. I liked MPLAB ICE2000 better but it does not support 3.3V parts like 18J/PIC24/dsPIC33. Read this thread and you will know my opinion. http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=282094 In fact, I like J-Link for ARM7 MCUs better than ICD2. I also liked the JTAG debugger for Silabs 8051 MCU and MSP430 MCUs even though I only played a bit. In terms of debugging capability, PICkit 2 is capable as ICD2 in terms of hardware. Walter (PICkit 2 developer) is working hard to get more debugging support for PICkit 2. Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist