Hi Deven,
You might want to see http://forums.camerabits.com/index.php?topic=1810.0
Sorry, I missed that request :-)
Another variation would be to display the newer version of either raw or jpg, this way the version displayed is the most recent one (presumably the one you edited). I suppose if this was implemented, there would have to be some visual indication of which version was being displayed.
I assume displaying the most recent would make is even more difficult.
I have always shot raw+jpg, but after purchasing PM I am seriously considering shooting raw only since with PM I can extract the jpgs after editing the raw file. This way the jpg reflects the edits and there is less of a synchronization issue. The only concern is that there is only one copy of the image to ingest, so the process is more vulnerable to corruption. However, after shooting 50K+ images, I can't remember losing any photos during the transfer from the card to the PC.
I'm more concerned about corruption of the RAW (NEF) files in general. I had a couple of occasions were they got corrupted. But not during ingest (was before I even had PM). I could not find out why, but it seems RAW fieles in general are more sensible and get corrupted much easier. That's why I started to shoot RAW+JPEG.
Maybe a good compromise is to continue to shoot raw+jpg, but immediately after ingesting moving the jpg files to there own directory and leaving them there until you've edited the raw files and safely extracted the jpg's from the raw files (so that the jpg's reflect the edits -- both image, IPTC, and rating edits). At this point you could delete the original jpgs.
I don't like that idea with having them in different folders at all. I have to maintain two folders and any edit of metadatas I do in PM have to be doublicated.
Anyway, I think that a global selection in preferences to use either JPEG or RAW-embedded-JPEG preview for JPEG+RAW files would be very nice and probably appreciated by many people (and it probably isn't that difficult to implement as it is possible to do excact that for the file info, but of course I am probably wrong in that regard).
Anyway, based on Kirk's response to your request it seems that this option will not be considered, at least not in the near future. Too bad, but then again I can understand that not every request can be implemented.