On Wed, October 26, 2011 6:05 pm, William Bulley wrote: > According to Peter Johansson on Wed, 10/26/11 at > 18:38: >> >> Unfortunately, the website doesn't really get into the differences >> between the PicKit 2 and 3. However, there are a number of reviews >> which compare the two. I am still using an ICD-2, but what follows >> summarizes what I have read of the PicKits: >> >> The PicKit 2 was designed by a clever individual or a very small >> group. It adds a lot of features in addition to basic programming >> without increasing hardware costs, and includes some very convenient >> command-line tools. As a result, it became very popular. When it >> came time to upgrade the PicKit 3, it was clearly done by committee. >> The PicKit 3 loses many of the cool features of the PicKit 2, the nice >> command-line tools, and while it uses a more powerful MCU it is >> actually slower to program. The PicKit 2 can program (some) of the >> 32-bit PICs, but cannot debug them. MicroChip makes no guarantees >> that it will support any future chips with the PicKit 2. >> >> If you do not plan to use the 32-bit PICs, you are probably better off >> with the PicKit 2. If you want to program and debug 32-bit PICS or be >> guaranteed support of the latest chips, go with the PicKit 3. > > Thank you for that most thoughtful and most helpful reply! :-) > > This is the kind of meta-knowledge I was looking for. As long as the > "superior" PicKit 2 remains available, this is the one I will settle > on since I have no plans at present to veer into the 32-bit realm. In terms of support, MPLAB8 has a selection guide within it that will tell you what programmers support the device you've selected- is you select 'configure' -> 'select device' and choose a part, if the bubble by the programmer or debugger is green, that programmer is fully supported.=20 Yellow means maybe - it is beta, not fully production tested. PICkit2 is a cool device, but it is rapidly running out of steam- part of the power behind it is that most of the work is done on the PC, but when programming or debugging larger parts, it becomes a chore and pretty slow. However, since most of the work was done on the PC, there were some cool applications you could do, such as a very simple logic analyzer. The PICkit3 offloads more to the programmer, but is still limited by a USB full speed connection- which really isn't a problem if you aren't programming a smaller part, but you will start to notice as the parts you program get bigger- the ICD3 and RealICE are USB High-speed and can send data that much faster. The real long-term advantage of the PICkit3, ICD3, and RealICE is that they share a very similar low level interface to the PC, making the job of supporting new devices much simpler and easier to test- which means an overall higher quality tool. Microchip tries to differentiate itself by making one IDE for all parts (MPLAB), and one set of tools for all parts (PICkit3, ICD3, and RealICE) [yes, these are goals... don't try to confuse me with reality!]. For the majority of PICs out there- it doesn't really matter how many bits the processor has, it is all about what it can do. (MY OWN OPINION!) I think the PICkit3 is a better long term choice. The cool things (non-programmer/debugger) you can do with the PICkit2 are great, but there are better solutions for that at non-extraordinary costs. Matt Bennett Just outside of Austin, TX 30.51,-97.91 The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large multinational corporation that you are familiar with. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .