Six more days until Photokina... we'll just have to wait and see.
As to howls of anguish... Nah. The EOS-1Ds is going to cost around three times the price of the D100 and the D1x is currently twice the price so a 10-12MPixel, full frame, top of the range camera isn't going to be an alternative for most people.
And the new G3 is still 4MP. I think a point will be reached (or realized) when more megapixels just equal bigger files, and little else. If you have a 8.5x11 inch printer, a D100 should be all you need, I would think.
"Less is not more. Enough is enough. Less is less." David Vestal
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it." Pablo Picasso
My prints are generally A4 size, and the D100 has sufficient resolution to produce excellent results. I also make a limited number of A3+ prints (13x19 inch) and I reckon a 12 MPixel camera would give me the resolution I need to have those look finely detailed when inspected up close, while 20 MPixels would give 300dpi at that size.
Another place where extra resolution would come in useful is when I want to crop an image and still be able to produce a high quality print.
On the other hand file size is becoming a concern: I archive my shots to CD-R and the D100's ~10Mb RAW file size already means I go through them like there's no tomorrow. A 12MPixel camera would make DVD-R's a necessity simply to stop the number of disks becoming ridiculous. Bigger files also mean you need a more powerful computer and a lot more RAM if editing isn't to become painfully slow.
From a personal point of view, 12MPixels seems a decent balance between having enough resolution for large prints or cropped images versus having to deal with huge files.