> I could be wrong, but IBM makes the only JVM that precompiled binaries but it costs money

You're wrong. GCJ makes "native" binaries and dlls.

> Sun has been trying to implement dynamic languages in to Java. MS has already done so.

Sun has been trying to implement dynamic dispatch. There have been dynamic languages on the JVM for a very long time. This very thread talked about a bunch of them.

> Both do have a virtual machine. But the work differently

No, they work about the same. Java's is faster: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=javaxx

> This has lead to some interesting things. Features are added more quickly to .Net and with better performance over Java

No they haven't. You are confusing the runtime with the virtual machine. The Java libraries that exist are simply massive and positively dwarf libraries written for .NET- even if you count each .NET version as a separate library.

> IL is an ASM like language. Bytecode by itself is not really a language.

Rubbish. IL is a bytecode, just like JVM's bytecode. There exist chips that run JVM bytecode directly. Bytecode isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it means that there aren't any instruction schedules, and that the semantics will be identical to a switch table.

> The CRL also supports versioning and support for user defined metadata. The JVM does not.

Yes it does. It's called META-INF/

> Java also has terrible naming conventions in its libraries.

Says you. You haven't demonstrated yourself to be expert enough in this field for that to be worthwhile however. JButton is called JButton because AWT's button is called Button.

> For desktop apps, the IL is completley compiled to a native binary and then run

No it doesn't. You're confusing us with star trek again.