Firefox, anyone?

According to an article at CNET, Microsoft will not be releasing future patches for the chronically security-challenged Internet Explorer. As much bad press as Microsoft's gotten recently due to all the worms, viruses, and exploits that IE has introduced, you'd think Bill Gates' boys would be putting security at the forefront. (In fact, they've claimed that security is a new priority over there—emphasis on "claimed"...) Of course, as soon as they can find a way to force mass upgrades they will abandon this would-be noble goal.

See, Microsoft is running to actually improve their products, so they are forced to use this security situation—which they created with their buggy software—to provide some momentum for sales.

If Internet Explorer was a standalone product that comes bundled with the OS (and could be uninstalled), I wouldn't really have a problem with this. However, IE is integrated into Windows, meaning an IE security patch is basically an OS security patch. Depriving paying users of these patches is just poor decision-making at its finest. Now I will say that if you're using any version of Windows that derived from Windows 95 (98, Me), then you should probably upgrade anyway as long as your system has the necessary horsepower. If you're using Windows 2000 for whatever reason, however, an upgrade shouldn't be necessary. That's a good, solid operating system that provides advantages over XP, primarily in the speed and performance department.

So, what's the moral of the story? Well, if you choose to alienate your customers then don't be surprised when they start trying out alternative sofware options.

-Mark