I currently use PhotoImpact by Ulead, as I have their full suite of programmes, for pics, dvds etc. Am thinking of going over to photoshop, as this seems to do more, or at least it seems that way to me.
I shoot both RAW and JPG, usually together. Then I can crop the jpegs for the web, and print from the raw edited ones.
Adobe Photoshop CS for me. A friend of mine has CS3 but it seems slower in operation and the 'Bridge' seems a cumbersome way of getting a file if all you want to do is open it and tweak it.
I tried a demo of Lightroom but couldn't work out what it was for and it doesn't have a sharpening facility.
I've heard a lot about RAW and decided to give it a go. It seems a very cumbersome way of working to me, particularly if you are processing more than just a handful of images. I think using RAW can be compared to those people who like Marmite - you either love it or hate it.
Barry could be correct in the RAW debate. I started just shooting JPG, then both, now only shoot RAW as I can recover a lot more of my mistakes while I'm learning :-) Granted I'll always be learning, but find I get more out of RAW, but that's just my opinion.