To my "newbie" mind, it seems to me these days one would seek a stove that is 1) of course, light; 2) still can be used when fire restrictions are in place; and 3) easy to get fuel at re-supply points as needed.

I am looking at the MSR Whisperlite Universal which can be run on white gas or isobutane-propane. I guess the more obvious downside to this stove is the price and possibly the weight. Anyone have thoughts on this stove? And what would be a better alternative? Is the Whisperlite durable and easy to clean?

When I first started backpacking 30+ years ago, something like the Whisperlite made all the sense in the world. Then, I started shedding pack pounds and simplified meal making. I ditched gas stoves...and I have a BIG collection of them. Went with tiny cook fires (twigs, leaves no trace), Esbit tabs, or alcohol. For a thru hike, decide the level of cooking you want to do, and match the stove. For heating a cup or two of water once in a while, you don't need a jet engine.

While alcohol, wood and (for some peculiar reason) esbit are often banned when there are fire restrictions, there is no reason to go to the opposite extreme in weight with a liquid-fueled stove such as the Whisperlite, in which the stove, the fuel, and the fuel container are all considerably heavier than other options. It also takes a lot of extra time because of the need to pump the thing. I once took a Whisperlite on a group trip, and everyone else (using cartridge stoves) was done with their meal before my water boiled! An isobutane canister stove is far lighter and you don't have to pump it! I've read that nearly all places used for resupply now carry the canisters.

Thanks for the great comments -- very helpful!

OM gave great advice. The white gas is getting harder to find and you have to buy more than you may be willing to carry, too. I ran into this problem numerous times with years of an Optimus 8r, then a Whisperlite. I still use the Whisperlite in winter and car camping, but vastly prefer my MSR Micro-Rocket for the trail.

I'm not a thru hiker, but have had quite a few stoves and thought I would share my opinion. You will find with experience that weight is important, but each individual has a different tolerance. some people consider 20% of their body weight the upper limit. For me, my limit is much less than that. My point being; you should know, through experience, what your (comfortable?) limit is. That, to some extent, might decide which stove you will take. I had two international whisperlites at different times, and yes they are bomb proof blow torches and they provided me with many a hot meal on top of a cold mountain. However lately I come back to my 3.5 ounce Pimus micro(canister, similar to Pocket Rocket) stove and share it with my buddy. I don't mind fussing with Esbit, and have done it, but if weight allows the canister stove is faster and more convenient to use. I use an MSR WindPro if temps are going to be near freezing.

Ok, so the MSR Microrocket has gotten some praise and it sure is light. But what about a stove "system" like the MSR WindBoiler Personal system that comes with its own pot etc. Are these things worth the extra money or do people prefer the flexibility of using a different pot with the burner?

Depends on the people: some value weight more than additional function. I've used a MicroRocket and Titan Kettle (and Snow Peak Giga and 700ml titanium pot) for minimalist cooking: boil water, pour it into the freeze-dried food bag, make tea in the pot, and eat from the bag. Kitchen weight: 8 ounces, more or less.

However, I've lately started to make my own dinners (pouch of meat, some rice or cous-cous or instant potatoes, seasoning or sauce, and cheese), and find it very handy to have a bowl or second pot. I tried the Windboiler, but lighting it is a bit fiddly (no built-in igniter) and it's an ounce heavier than the Jetboil MiniMo I settled on (about 14 ounces); I also like the MiniMo Pot better - it's a near-clone to the Titan Kettle (great size and shape), but has a cozy. With the measuring cup that doubles as a bowl, I can prepare food in one container and hot tea in the other.

In the end, it comes down to function, not weight, as the priority: figure out how you like to cook, then buy the lightest stove and pot combination/system that fits your cooking methods.

I'm usually cooking for my wife and I, and sometimes like cooking something up that is beyond just boiling water, so a pared down GSI Dualist is what we've been using for the past 3 years.The pot with it is very non-stick and does a good job of making scrambled eggs out of the Ova-Easy crystal eggs, if I use a packet of olive oil. I've got good service out of a piece of tinfoil and natural windbreaks to get quick boiling. Caution, do not direct heat back on the canister, make sure you're just blocking wind. If it was just me, I think I'd do with a single titanium pot for everything. I've stayed away from the systems, as they appear a little complicated with extra parts to fail. That's just me though, I haven't really done research on their durability and longevity.

My system is pretty basic. I go the "freezer bag" or boil and soak route except I use a 2 cup, 0.8 oz Glad snap top storage container rather than a freezer bag for soaking. The container weighs about the same as two freezer bags, feels a lot better in your hand and a short spoon works just dandy. My meals are heat-sealed in 1-mil plastic bags trimmed to fit. The rest of my kitchen is either a Snow Peak Giga and appropriate canister or a Pepsi can alcohol stove with a pot support and 8 fl oz alky bottle. I use a Titan kettle or an IMUSA mug as a pot. I prefer a separate, plastic cup for coffee and cocoa (no burned lips) so I have a 1.2 oz plastic cup. The above plus a small wiping cloth, a plastic spoon, salt and pepper and a stove wind shield (0.7 oz) is about it.

I have played around with "stove systems" and have decided that they are heavier than I like and lack the flexibility of a non-integrated pot and stove. For example, once when getting up to pee I stepped on my Pepsi stove. I was able to finish the six day trip using small fires rather than the stove (no fire restrictions that spring). I don't see that sort of flexibility with items like the jet boil. I'm definitely a Luddite and subscribe to the KISS system.😀

Late to the discussion, but my nickel's worth is go with a nice hot cannister stove and a lightweight pot. If you can, find one that simmers, it saves fuel. I find I can fit a small cannister, a cleaning cloth, and my 2.9 oz Coleman Exponent F1 inside my smaller titanium pot. Whole setup weighs 16 oz or so including a refillable butane lighter and is good for 4 days.

There are lighter stoves, like the Olicamp Kinetic Ultra Titanium at 1.7 oz, but it it takes longer to boil (way longer) and has narrow pot supports. Ever dropped your supper off the stove? Not a happy experience.

Given the length of a thru hike, I would suggest that there is no reason to confine oneself to a single stove choice for the entire hike. Stoves are not especially expensive, especially the homemade alcohol stoves. Because fire restrictions are common in SoCal, but become less common as one travels north, it makes perfect sense to me to use canisters in SoCal, in order to avoid running afoul of bans on stoves that have no shut-off valve, but to consider whether an alcohol stove or esbit makes more sense in other areas. The actual stoves are a negligible investment compared to the overall expense of the trip.

I'm coming a bit late to this; just came back from hiking in Spain (that should be a valid excuse at least on this forum, right? )

I think the approach suggested by Aimless makes sense. But in fact, fire danger has grown such that it's no longer just a "first 700 miles" thing.

Alcohol stoves are the clear favorite of PCT thru-hikers, or at least were (?), because of the availability of fuel. Hardware stores carry denatured alcohol, many gas stations carry gasline antifreeze, and alcohol fuel can be dispensed by the ounce, whereas canister stoves are dispensed by the ... canister. PITA, and less available, and then you have to find a place to responsibly dispose of the canister afterwards.

But of course people do thru-hike with canister stoves, and as I recall, with certain limitations I think canisters can even be sent (mailed) in resupply boxes. Here's one reference to this, anyway:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php/42-Canister-stove-fuel-FAQ

Canister fuel is certainly a more efficient fuel to use, if you can get it, and don't end up carrying an extra canister too-o often (something that makes it trickier to do total-system weight-carried comparisions). I've used a canister on trails where I felt that I could get replacment canisters along the way often enough to make it credible. But for long distance hiking (in the US) in general I still prefer alcohol stoves due to the fuel availability issue.

For the PCT, what I might suggest people do in future is eat cold (stoveless) for the first 700 miles, pick up a stove of some sort when you get your bear canister and other stuff for "the sierras", then sort out after that (when getting rid of the bear canister) what stove is best. If any. Recognizing that as wildfires get to be a bigger issue throughout the west, and not just (as has been historically all too common) California, that more stove restrictions might be put in place in future.

I've walked through an awful (and I mean awful) lot of burned areas on the PCT, a couple of times while things were literally still smoldering. The most emotionally impactful instance of that was hiking a piece of the PCT in WA state that I had hiked multiple times BEFORE it had burned. That really brought it home for me. Alcohol stoves work just great when used with care, responsibly. Canister stoves definitely offer less (not zero but less) chance of an accidental fire.