>The point that MS created the CLR is not a big problem because Borland have lincense of .NET (is the only company with that, i think)

Not true. Other companies have it too. When VS .NET was first launched there was great fanfare over a COBOL compiler.

> and have priority acces (in fact, Borland say that .NET was made for Delphi ;) ), for that reason Borland put some things into Delphi 8 that not exist in other languages... Obvious with time each language can be enchanced for the things that are best suited (like the future enchancements to c++, c#, vb) and the same apply to Delphi. In this context, Delphi become the same: powerfull like C, easy like Basic...

A .NET version of Delphi can only do what the CLR allows, just like any .NET language.

>The reality is that for VB&C# MUST wait (more problematic to VB than C/C#) for a more RAD way to code, design & architect a aplication,

I don't understand what you're saying. VB and C# definately have a RAD way to code, design, and architect an application.

>Delphi not have this problem because is the same into .NET and out .NET, in this case, Delphi lead to the actual MS offering for 1-2 releases ;)

Again, I don't understand what you're saying.

>plus the advantage to not drop Win32 and still keep the same code (and the portability to Linux is a plus, too)

I don't see either of those as a plus. In fact, I see the Linux arguement as a drawback. For the UI to be effective, you have to code to either a common standard or have several custom UIs, one for each Linux GUI you're going to support or just support one.