Depends on what your idea of any good is. It's better than IE6 and IE7 in terms of improved security and much better handling of INTERNATIONAL STANDARD HTML. You have no idea the frustration it is to try and write a webpage that works in IE6 and any other browser, but if you've ever seen someone who has odd bald patches on their head... They either have mange, or are a web developer who has to support IE6.
But since IE3, it still has the same fundamentally flawed ActiveX system, which is where all the malware comes from. So while security is quite a bit improved from IE6, where for 3-4 years there was at least one new remote exploit found pretty much every week, MS still has yet to properly sandbox ActiveX and so I can't say as I recommend anyone use it if they have a choice in the matter.
Doesn't really matter what you pick to replace it, it's going to be far more secure, and having a variety of browsers in widespread use is good for the market. It promotes healthy competition. You could use Firefox (or its siblings Flock and Seamonkey), Chrome, Safari, or Opera. You have at least 4 major alternatives, and they're all free. They also, and more importantly, have a much faster turnaround time on fixing issues when found. Microsoft rarely gets a patch out within a week, usually they push out one set of patches a month (patch Tuesdays, which was yesterday BTW), and it sometimes can take months or even years if Microsoft decides they want to bother fixing it at all. Mozilla browsers (Firefox, Seamonkey, and Flock) usually have a turnaround time of 2-3 days from the time a flaw is found to when there's a fix ready. The other browsers are usually under a week for fixes, though sometimes Apple is a bit slow on the uptake like Microsoft, and will for reasons known only to them, just decide to sit on a bug for weeks, months, years even. So assuming a flaw is found that affects all browsers equally well, you're likely to be exposed for a far shorter period of time with any browser that isn't IE.