Looking at the X10, useless if I only shoot RAW?

Been looking at compact premiums, something to pair with my DSLR and to use for video every so often (personal use), mostly to use in street photography. RX100 is clearly the best P+S in terms of technicalities right now but the X10 seems to offer more of what I want and for a cheaper price too, more manual control, easier grip, faster lens at the long end and a viewfinder so I can stick it in auto and pretend I'm shooting film, always fun for street photography, also I enjoy accessorising my cameras and the X10 looks to do that well.

Image quality is not a massive thing for me, noise doesn't bother me at all, I view online (flickr) and when I print they're small prints, I crop now and again but I'm not a pixel peeper, no-one zooms into my pictures when they view them anyway so I don't see how a better sensor and more megapixels will benefit me in anyway.

So the X10 seems to be perfect, problem is, I've always shot RAW and invested heavily into Photoshop and Lightroom to specifically edit in RAW, I enjoy doing it and have gotten quite good at it too, but I've heard the X10 RAW files are terrible, more to do with the EXR sensor which no program seems to get right, I've seen some of the comparisons of the forum comparing the in-camera JPEG to the RAWs when used in Lightroom, in that regard the X10 would be useless as I really enjoy playing with my files, and RAW gives me the ability to do so.

I've probably gone off into a tangent here and if so I apologize, my main question is, if I want to shoot RAW and edit in post, will the X10 be a bit of an old shoe for me? I did say that image quality isn't a massive priority for me but if the X10 is going to give me dodgy RAWs, I don't think I can live with that. I might just grab the X10 and see for myself how the RAWs look, see if Lightroom 4 does it well or not, then return it if the RAWs really are dismal, but I don't want to be wasting my time.

Cheers!