RTI is targeted to be programmed by a pro. While I don't think that the RTI is any harder to program than a URI, RTI does not release the programming software to the public. It is possible for a URI owner to get their hands on a programming tool.

While each has its own little pluses and minuses, the URC and RTI programming environments are similar. One nice feature about the RTI environment is that the program is aware of the various controller models. One specifies which models are in the project and the program will manage the lot. RTI offers lots of little accessories to make my life easier.

Warts and all, I prefer the Pronto because I have great control over the user interface.

If a customer wants a low end remote for a simple system where I have some control over what happens, I'll use URC. I never claim that the results will be as good as I can get with a Pronto.

In terms of my programming time, there is not much difference. In fairness, I have much more experience with the Pronto's and at this point I have lots of shells and little pieces of Pronto "business" that I can rapidly copy and paste together. I can throw together a relatively sophisticated, customized controller with minimal effort. (We'll ignore the time an effort required to build those little pieces)

In all cases there is room for programing "style". I've taken over a few URC programs and, within the capabilities of the remote, used principles and interactions that I routinely use with Pronto's. Customers remark that the remote is much easier to use than before. Basically, the original programmers were trying to impress someone how quickly they could throw something together. While there was only one remote, all of the pain of separate remotes was accurately captured inside of a single shell. Within the remote's limits, my work integrated everything into a system controller. I'm sure that I spent more time on the program than the earlier person.