I shoot RAW .
It's unmessed with. It becomes the modern version of a transparency. It can seem a boring thing compared to the tweaked up jpegs created in camera but only if I shot time critical stuff like sports for web and newspapers would it be different.
I shoot raw to get me the maximum exposure range the sensor can record for me to use as I want. That range is still far, far less than the human eye can see but it gives me more choices within those limitations. That's with what I shoot though - most people simply couldn't be arsed any more than they'd build their own PC.
I don't want or need more megapixels given present sensor sizes and technology unless I'm significantly stepping up from my normal maximum 18x12 or A3+ print size. I'm also hitting the lens quality being the limiting factor at that print size - prime lenses or pro zooms become a must for critical work.
But then again, how many prints a year do
you take to that size? I do it a lot - at just over a UK pound a print these days it would be rude not to
RAW is about preserving as much quality as possible and accepting that post processing is inherent to your workflow. It suits me, it's how I've always worked from film days. My hand made cibachrome prints from 30 years ago still look stunning. The stuff I sent to Bonusprint like everyone else just looks faded and old. It's about what you want from photographs and how much effort you'll put in. Most people are very happy with their jpegs and either don't know or don't care that their camera is capable of much more.
It's always been that way whatever the technology. Same with film, video, hi fi.
Rob