Which PIC Programmer ?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Hello,

I am new to pic programming. I have done two small projects tell now, and I
am interested to buy a pic programmer, but I am not sure which one to get.
Based on what I have read in the internet, I think pickkit2 or pickkit3 are
good programmers for beginners. Which one do you guys recommend ?


Thanks,

      
                    
---------------------------------------        
Posted through http://www.Electronics-Related.com

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The PICKIT-3 well cover more parts in the Microchip family.

h

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I guess for a beginner the biggest difference to be the price-tag. But as
the pickit3 is newer I nevertheless advise this one. It covers some more
components and it may last longer.

petrus bitbyter



Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:17:56 -0500, "Musab"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have a PicKit3. It's the only store-bought programmer I have tried,
so I have nothing to compare to, but I am very pleased with it. In
addition to programming the chips, it is also a basic debugger, which
is incredibly useful sometimes.
--
RoRo

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

For a beginner, I would point you to the Pickit3.

But if you have some experience, and have the extra cash, then the ICD3
would be the second choice.
Why? Debugging speed.  It's faster than the pickit3, which is helpful
during those stressful times.

Cheers



Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:41:02 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Uh, no.  THe PICkit3 is known to be buggy.  Just check the forums at
Microchip or elsewhere on Usenet.  PICkit2 or an MPLab IDC 2 or ICD 3.

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They haven't fixed PICkit3 yet?  Glad I didn't go buy one.  PICkit2 is
okay for starting out, even better if you get the 28-pin demo board, because
the CPU on that has ICE support, saves you needing one of the IDC products.

Grant.

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
The MPLAB updated my PICKIT3, Some time in the last year.

I have not seen any bugs in PICKIT3 on the PIC18 chips I use.

Are you sure its still buggy ?

h


Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It ws still listed as buggy about 5-6 months ago, they may have fixed
it by now.  Then again they may not have.  Since i do not have one i
have no reason to go swimming through the relevant Microchip forums.
Do you?

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Yes, I do if it relates to the chips I use.

hamilton


Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:09:37 -0700, joseph snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I had an ICD2, but the connection to the programming cable started
getting flakey, so I bought an ICD3.  Well worth the price difference.
The ICD3 is USB2.0, so you get a huge increase in throughput.  The
programming/verify cycle is now just a few seconds, as almost half a
minute for the ICD2 for a 128M chip.

Charlie

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have the PICkit2, very happy with it.  Also it has debug mode that works
very well with the PIC chips with on-chip debug support, like the 16F886/887
I'm using at the moment.

If you're using 16Fxxx and below, PICkit2 is fine, I have no idea about the
more complex chips.

Grant.

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Another thing to ask yourself is: am I going to program other devices
in the future? If you have the money to spend a Galep5 from conitec.de
is an excellent programmer which can program almost any device.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:43:47 GMT) it happened snipped-for-privacy@puntnl.niks

Quoted text here. Click to load it

My personal view is that if you want to program a PIC you should start by
building
your own programmer, and read the programming specification.
 http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/jppp18/index.html
At least then you know what you are doing.
And cheaper too, you learn more, faster, more reliable,
better quality, more flexible.
Of course one should learn [a] programming [language] too, starting with asm.

And not use that MPLAB bloat...
I will never understand what that adds to things.
here is a device that you can program in 20 seconds,
as many times as you like, and if more times those are only a few $,
and then why wrestle with MPlab bloat simulation on a MS PC? Us Linux and gpasm.

The world will die of simulations, even NASA's manned space travel has been
replaced by simulations,
everything you find on the web is 'simulation',
we need a reality call.
WW3 would help.


Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
building
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I use MPLab for the assembler and comms to the PICkit2, haven't used the
simulator.  So I'm getting fast turnaround and testing code on hardware.

I don't understand why one wouldn't do it that way if they're already
running windows?  

Does gpasm and Linux stuff you're using give you access to the chip's
ICE registers in debug mode?

Grant.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
replaced by simulations,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
building
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And if you want to drive a car, you need to be able to build up a car
from scratch.

Grow the rubber for the tires.

Smelt the iron for the engine.

Cast the break pads, till you get it right.

Why can't people do the simplest things.

hamilton


Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:01:11 -0600) it happened hamilton

Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
building
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yea, I dunno, I did all repairs with my car :-)
Your anal-log description is incomplete, and does not apply.
Micro-thing is about programming and hardware, and this is a design group.
So if you want to play with a micro-thingy you *should* know programming
and flip[s]-and-flop[s], I did design my own micro with TTL one day, because I
could not get a budget approval for a microcomputer development system (very
early ones),
but I has unlimited budget for digital design, so I designed my own processor.
It worked, was a bit risc, way a head of time.
Wire wrap too.

The point is perhaps that the today kiddies want to start top down.
That is why NASA cannot go to mars with a manned mission.
Von Braun did it bottom up, knew the works
and just went for the moon.
These days they only have simulations at NASA, and even then their rockets are
unstable.
Because they fired all the people with real hands on experience in the seventies
of the last century.
Top down does not work!
Sure you can learn a kid to drive a car.
But first thing something does not work, and 'wtf is a sparkplug?' comes up,
they will need a rescue team to get them back home.
Well along those lines anyways.

Today we see the same thing over again at NASA, firing hundreds of engineers who
finally learned how
to work in a precise way.

Politics, and science, seem to often become each others enemy.
Politics wants to use science, and it can accomplish great things, but then
things die because of infighting.
And an other empire goes down.
2000+ may become the age of the simulations, as opposed to the one of Aquarius
(or was it aquarium), well.
Finally everything becomes a simulation I think there was that movie...   and
nobody has a clue about reality,
just brains hooked up to a main frame, nobody to maintain it hough, cosmic ray
comes,
chip bit flips, humanity gone.
This is why I mentioned WW3, it would be the wakeup call.
Imagine no supermarket to get food from, million dying in cities without food,
back to the land (living from), to hell with simulations.
RIIIIIIIIIING
 


Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:43:46 +1100) it happened Grant

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ones that are running win[!]do[w]s are members of the sect of the God Of Bloat.
True devotion to the G O B means sacrificing CPU cycles to keep the G O B happy.
The G O B in return will then inspire you to upgrade to ever more powerful
hardware.
Soon you will need a 5 core 3.4 GHz plus GPU hardware accelerator to edit an
email.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have not used any of that stuff ever.
That includes debug.

LOL

I think one uses 'debug' or ICE when one cannot imagine what is happening in the
silicon, or in ones own soft?
This points to a lack of analytical capabilities, lack of imagination, or
absence of functioning neuron groups.
 

Re: Which PIC Programmer ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
the silicon, or in ones own soft?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are right, usually you don't need a debugger for a PIC program, but if
programming on PC, in a 100,000 lines program, sometimes I really cannot
image what is happpening in my own software :-) and then a debugger is
really useful.

--
Frank Buss, http://www.frank-buss.de
piano and more:
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Which PIC Programmer ?
On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:12:05 +0200) it happened Frank Buss

Quoted text here. Click to load it
the silicon, or in ones own soft?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

NewsFleX, this newsreader I am writing this with, I wrote (in C),
is about that size.
You can start it with the '-d' flag, and will then use printf() to print all
function calls
and arguments to those functions, plus whatever other variables are used.
So printf() is is my debug.
I rely on gcc.
If I write is asm then I usually add some routines that can print numbers in
ASCII,
and use those for debug, those routines have been debugged over time, for
example for a PIC
it is just copy and paste to include those, takes up very little space.
In case of a PIC all I need is 1 I/O pin for debug for serial out.

Example:
int show_posting_body(long posting_id)
{
int c;  
struct posting *pa, *lookup_posting();
char temp[READSIZE];
FILE *load_filefd;
struct stat *statptr;
char *space, *spaceptr;
char *ptr;
char *expanded_space;

if(debug_flag)
    {
    fprintf(stdout, "show_posting_body(): arg posting_id=%ld\n",\
    posting_id);
    }

/* parameter check */
if(posting_id < 0) return 0;

... rest function


Site Timeline