On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:37 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Hasan Khan wrote: > > I was working with a small programmer which I bought from kitsrus.com. I used > > it a few times to learn PIC and now I was ready to do some commercial work. > > I ordered an ICD2. A few weeks after I received my ICD2, microchip released > > ICD3. I am totally bummed now. I hope they don't obsolete ICD2 anytime soon. > > No need to panic. ICD 2 is fine for PIC12/16/18. It is just too slow for bigger > dsPIC, PIC24 and PIC32. ICD 2 will still be supported. So if you are > doing work with PIC12/16/18, you are fine. Frankly Xiaofan I've seen you say this multiple times, and I just don't agree. The ICD2 works fine with the 16bit PICs (DSPIC and PIC24F). As long as you don't go to crazy with what you're watching it's more then speedy enough to be very useful. I haven't personally hooked mine up to a PIC32 so for that one I can't say. Hasan, the ICD2 is a wonderful tool, you haven't made a mistake. The ICD3 is supposedly faster and more robust, but for me I'll stick with the ICD2. TTYL -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist