There may be a misunderstanding here.
1. Having a tag line put on VOLUNTARILY is fine, but putting it on without notice or approval, or a way to disable it (what the free version did), isn't acceptable.
2. I know when I tried Emsisoft before 2014_02, I had the same option (30 day trail), but as I indicated before, the one I downladed the beginning of this month, and a couple of days ago, it didn't, which means the programmers messed up. This is the first program, THAT I CAN RECALL, that had a trail period and it messed up. Again, that I can recall.
3. When I tried Emsisoft before 2014_02, it was on Windows 7 and Windows XP Pro, and it was just fine (meaning the trail period). The last two times I tried it, it was also on Windows 7, but it messed up, so it's not the OS, but the programmers. The Windows 7 image is from the same image I used before 2014_02.
4. I understand program bugs. However when you put things together, you also have to look at the negative, especially when it comes to security issues. It is a possibility that the date issue might have been the cause of say, one "newbie" that QA (quality assurance) failed to find, but that is still their responsibility.
5. As for your question: "However, I personally am more interested in how a program can protect me from malware and how well it works at removing infections, as isn't the point of a security program in the end?", let me address that. The short answer is yes, it matters on how tell it works, but when certain conditions cast doubt on things, especially security software, they must also be added to the equation. Take these few examples. When I got clobbered with viruses in 1995, I copied the infected files to a floppy, and used for testing later on.
5.1. McAfee. In 1995, when I was infected with 600+ viruses, McAfee only detected about 50% of them. But Norton detected all of them. Since then, I've tested McAfee against Norton, and the results never changed, even with newer versions of the programs.
5.2. AVG. The same thing, but it's detection rate was only about 5% of the above viruses.
5.3. I've performed similiar tests, with other programs and the results were as shocking. When done with the test, on an ISOLATED COMPUTER, WITH A HARD DRIVE DEDICATED TO THIS TESTING ALONE, I'D FORMAT THE DRIVE BEFORE USE AGAIN, IN ANOTHER TEST.
I use several antivirus/malware programs for protection, as well as 50+% of my Firefox addons are security related. When I delete files (e.g. bank statements), I use the same protocal that is used to delete classified, DoD files.
I standby my comments of "As for Emsisoft products, I question the abilities of their programmers". However, that won't stop me testing their program again, quite a few times. Even if my testing proves out that it seems to be OK, Emsisoft will NEVER be my primary malware program, just a secondary, on demand scanner, to verify other scans.
I just reread my one post, where I said: "Because of the above, makes me question if Emsisoft really has the ability to properly program an antimalware program, and firewall". I realize now that may have been a little strong. I've already replaced Comodo with a firewall I've tested for about 3 months, on several thousand known bad sites, and I'm satisified with it. This means I have no plans on testing Emsisoft's firewall again.
Yes, a lot of users get infected, I agree. I helped a friend early this year that was infected and the condition for my help was that he wouldn't change security settings, install programs that I know was bad, etc. Well after his system was fixed, he immediately started to make changes, and installing the known bad programs. Well, he's on his own now. He'll need to take it to the shop, find someone on line to help him, or find someone local to him (non computer shop type) to assist him.
Have a great day!