I'm not sure I'd say the failure of most to adapt Vista/Direct X 10 is the real bottleneck for PC developers.

While the additional effects in games that actually took advantage of them are a decent improvement, it was hardly anything most were willing to upgrade OSs for, much less Vista, given it's ruined reputation. Without looking for specific differences, generally I don't even notice.

I'm curious to see how much of an improvement DX 11 will be personally, since it will influence how soon I upgrade to Windows 7 and to DX 11 VGA cards, but until I see the difference in games, I'm counting on it being another incremental bump in quality rather than a reason to drop everything and upgrade.

The typical hardware build on the other hand, may be a bit more of a speed bump, given that the last game that practically had mandatory hardware upgrade requirements was Crysis back in late 2007.

Most common PCs builds are still catching up 18 months later.

Quad core PCs are great for workstations and media processing, but no compelling games are requiring them despite being available since 2006. And really, why would they since they're still among the vast minority of PCs?

And that is the biggest hold up for PC games; developing for the lowest common denominator, balancing increased hardware requirements with a reduction of initial potential users that fall within those requirements.

I can't think of any compelling game since Crysis, and seeing as how it's the first thing PC gamers latch onto to "prove" the superiority of the gaming platform, it's not the available hardware that's holding things back (all depends on how much you're willing to pay), and I'd say it's not even software developers; it's the typical PC user.

Don't the first and last points have a strong and compelling connection?

Anyway, we won't see what DX10 can do until people actually upgrade to Win7/Vista, and DX10 until they do that we won't see what DX10 can do. Its a troublesome circle.

If you can't run Vista without turning off functions, you're obviously running dated/low power hardware.

But gamers typically upgrade hardware before regular PC users.

I think that was probably Vista's biggest shortcoming back when it debuted. A lot of PC users thought they'd be able to get a "new" computer by upgrading operating systems, when the truth was most were better off actually buying a new computer with Vista installed. They were hoodwinked hence the backlash. Failed initial driver support, performance issues, etc. didn't exactly help either.

As far as PC gamers go, DX 10 was supposed to be the carrot to get gamers to upgrade to Vista, but given the number who still to this day insist XP is a better gaming OS, even those with custom gaming rigs with extreme hardware builds, it implies that most gamers, even the enthusiasts who upgrade just to play the next hardware crushing game, didn't see the merit of DX 10. They just upgraded video cards to run what what already out a bit faster and smoother.

Unless DX 11 shows a compelling difference, it doesn't seem likely gamers will all adopt Windows 7 en masse. Who knows? Maybe it will and maybe gamers will all jump on board, upgrading to DX 11 VGA cards at the same time.

But for that to happen, we definitely need to see a killer game that showcases the advantages of DX 11. Otherwise, it will simply be more of an issue of people upgrading to Windows 7 on the merits of the OS, rather than its benefit to gaming.

DX11 will show a compelling difference because it incorporates half the features which were supposed to be killer features in DX10/10.1 and it also contains one very compelling tessellation feature which as soon as it gets mass adoption will level the playing field between high end/low end hardware. Vista/7 have to get adopted first for this to be used, but I suspect Windows 7 will be loved because Vista was hated. I expect a massive surge in gamers upgrading their PCs as soon a W7 is released, in spite of W7 just being repackaged Vista in most ways.

Yeah, I pretty much say like a lot of other users, that Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3 with a repainted GUI, not that this is a bad thing so long as it's more streamlined (lower/same hardware requirements without performance hit) and more refined (no/minimal compatibility issues).

Still not convinced everyone is going to upgrade "just because" it's supposed to be so much more wonderfuller (sp) than Vista or XP.

But I'm sure there are plenty of XP users who really want to upgrade, and others still who would have upgraded had it not been for the stigma attached to Vista.

As for everyone and their grandmother upgrading PCs as soon as Windows 7 comes out? I don't see this happening at all. It's supposed to run smoother/faster on the same hardware (like Vista was), not require people to go out and buy new faster computers.

I don't see everyone and their grandmother, but for gamers its pretty compelling.

Windows 7 will come out at the same time as:

Mainstream CoreI7 Cpus
Direct X 11 + Cards on 40nm (8800GTX owners can FINALLY upgrade. )
Just in time for the Christmas shopping season.

Hardware companies are taking a bet on Windows 7, and are positioning their hardware releases to coincide.

Anyway, the tipping point is 50% gamer adoption of Vista/Windows 7 and that should come soon after the end of the year IMO.

50% seems high although I'm sure MS would be elated to see those kinds of numbers, even among a niche market like PC gamers.

It will be pretty easy to check after Steam updates their user survey data.

I'm going to say that adoption will be gradual rather than immediate, despite the advantages of Windows 7/DX 11, even among gamers.

Core i7 really isn't a factor though, even with mainstream CPUs. Vendors may start shipping mainstream PCs using the chips, but it won't lead to an explosion of sales, no matter how Intel markets them.

Quad core intel CPU systems are fairly mainstream in terms of cost, but most users still haven't upgraded, not even gamers just going by Steam user statistics.

Personally, I'd like to see games that took full advantage of the additional cores, but it's not going to happen overnight. Hell, I'd like to see any excuse (not reason) to build an i7/X58 system soon, but unless I was using it as a workstation, it wouldn't be a huge jump for every day use and gaming.

Are you really going to argue that PSN and Live aren't absolutel failures and utterly pathetic when compared to what the PC online offerings are? Oh man, I REALLY want to see this. I predict epic lulz.

Vista based OS's (Vista 32/64/Win7) = 37.87%

Windows XP has dropped 2.76% to 60.68%  

At this rate it should be more over 50% for Vista/7 within a year on Steam.

Why would he? You're not exactly the most reasonable and rational poster here.