Microchip's ICD4 Review

[tarun172]

I wonder if somebody got their hands on Microchip's ICD4 programmer. Is this programmer any better than ICD3? I wonder what Dave thinks about this? Would be a good eevblog video topic (if you are listening Dave!). I am hesitating buying this programmer because I still remember Mircochip's Pickit 3 fiasco several years back. Any comments?

- Tarun S

[NivagSwerdna]

MES did a review

[NivagSwerdna]

I still remember  Mircochip's Pickit 3 fiasco several years back. Any comments?

IMHO There was no fiasco, just users unable to understand that you press the button to invalidate the driver when switching devices/modes.

[Elasia]

I've been using a Microchip RealICE for well over a decade now.... ICD4 looks comparable for most usage of it... most likely the best programmer of theirs to get at the moment and its cheaper too.

[jc101]

I have one, works well for PIC18 and PIC32 I use it on.  I have a RealICE too but that won't power the board where the ICD4 will with an external PSU, I just hook it up to the bench PSU.

It's also nice and fast programming and debugging, I think it's faster than the RealICE.

[tarun172]

Thank you all...

[JPortici]

PK3 fiasco?
frankly i prefer the PK3 over the PK2, as i use it as a DEBUGGER.

is the ICD4 worth buying now?
as for today for me it's not, all the pics i use are still NOT supported or beta supported (dsPICs with codeguard, PIC32) so i can't use it for development.
when they will be supported, hell yeah. esp if it will also support jtag.
same for pickit4.

[Elasia]

lol no codeguard? what rubbish.. guess i wont ever be either... hail another decade of realice

[Howardlong]

Biggest negatives for me for the ICD4 are the lack of device support, and that some devices won’t debug anywhere near reliably when running at full speed.

Only buy the ICD4 if you already have another debugger, the current limitations would make it a frustrsting choice. There’s also not much currently that makes it a better device to the PICkit 4 (which has similar features and flaws).

The ICD4 and PICkit4 program many devices much more quickly than the ICD 3 or RealICE. You also don’t have it download new firmware every time you change processor sub family.

Pretty much every time I use the ICD4 it’s been a disappointing experience, and I find myself switching back to the ICD3 or RealICE.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Biggest negatives for me for the ICD4 are the lack of device support, and that some devices won’t debug anywhere near reliably when running at full speed.

Only buy the ICD4 if you already have another debugger, the current limitations would make it a frustrsting choice. There’s also not much currently that makes it a better device to the PICkit 4 (which has similar features and flaws).

The ICD4 and PICkit4 program many devices much more quickly than the ICD 3 or RealICE. You also don’t have it download new firmware every time you change processor sub family.

Pretty much every time I use the ICD4 it’s been a disappointing experience, and I find myself switching back to the ICD3 or RealICE.

I use ICD4 for programming only on PIC32MX1xx devices and has been OK (and faster than ICD3) so far. Haven't had time to play with PK4 yet

[@rt]

Nice!

* We haven’t got round to software for field programming yet,
   but will let you know