Tif preserves a lot of information about the image, and it benefits from processing done within the camera to give you a good image. Thus, while it can be used with a photo editor like Photoshop, this is not a requirement. It can be printed as is if you wish.
Raw format pretty much demands some image processing. It is a dump of data from the camera's sensor, and does not have the internal algorithms of the camera's processor applied. That sounds like a disadvantage, but it is not. Raw processing allows you to adjust things like white balance and exposure long after the camera snaps the photo. With the click of a mouse you can change from tungsten to sun light. By dragging a slider you can increase or decrease the exposure time. Thus, an image could, for example, be 'developed' twice. Once with a longer exposure to get the details in the shadow areas. A second time with a shorter exposure to tone down the highlights. These two images can be merged by a photo editor so that all areas of the image are properly exposed. Raw is powerful, but requires this 'custom' work to make it useful.
Which is better? There is so much discussion about this. I am considering a camera that only has the TIFF format. Would this work fine for me?

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic