On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Forrest Christian <forrestc@imach.com> wrote:
> I currently use a PicKit2 (along with a couple of non-microchip ICD's),
> and am considering buying another one (or a PicKit3 more likely) since I
> really like the way it operates.  Like it just works, on pretty much
> everything I've tried...  3.3V, 5V, ICD-powered, project-powered, etc.
> etc. etc..  If I'm having a problem with one of the other ICD's I grab
> the pickit and it just works.
>
> I occasionally on here will see people saying things like
> (paraphrasing), "I need to get another ICD2, and in the meantime I'm
> using the PicKit2", or similar remarks that indicate that there is
> something better about the ICD2, but from everything I read, and
> especially with the newer firmware loads in the PicKit, I sure can't
> figure out what it is.
>
> Did I miss something?

ICD 2 is better integrated into MPLAB and it supports PIC32
debugging (barely currently but it is said that MPLAB 8.20
will have better support of ICD 2 for PIC 32 programming
and debugging).

If you do not use PIC32 debugging, then PICkit 2 is actually
as good (or arguable better) than ICD 2 in terms of debugging
capability. In terms of programming, IMHO PICkit 2 is
always better than ICD 2 since it can control target
power. Take note that PICkit 2 does support programming
of PIC32. It also has other functionality that ICD 2 does
not have (logic probe, serial function and console version
programming software: pk2cmd).

On the other hand, ICD 3 is totally different beast than
ICD 2. It is much faster than PICkit 2 and ICD 2 for
debugging of bigger PIC18/24/32/dsPICs.

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