Microsoft disables yet another offline Windows activation option, pushing online only
Microsoft has reportedly ended support for phone-based product activation in Windows and Office, quietly discontinuing a longstanding option for users without internet access. This change appears to affect Windows 11, Windows 10, and even Windows 7, removing the ability to complete activation by phone.
Although Microsoft support articles still describe an “Activate by Phone” option in Windows Settings, users say calling the activation number now triggers an automated message that redirects them to the Microsoft Product Activation Portal at aka.ms/aoh. Instead of providing an activation code by phone, the process appears to be pushed to a web based flow, leaving the old offline path unusable.
The change has been discussed in user forums and shown in a video from an user, but official documentation has not yet been updated to match. It also aligns with Microsoft’s broader push toward internet dependent setup and activation, including tighter restrictions on OOBE workflows that previously allowed more offline or local account routes.
- Operating System
- Paid
- Proprietary
Related news
External links
- Microsoft silently kills Windows and Office phone activation and forces online activation with a Microsoft account — Windows users are now herded into an online-only portal for activationTom's Hardware
- Microsoft kills Windows operating system activation by phone optionCybernews
- Microsoft quietly kills official way to activate Windows 11/10 without internetNeowin
Comments
here we go again... time to open my old WinXP laptop and play Pinball. internet was a mistake.
Not activating Windows doesn't prevent using any software or getting security updates, but basically just changing wallpaper.
And since Windows 11 requires an online account, it makes perfectly sense to use internet to activate it.
So it may be one of the most sensible decisions from Microsoft in the past years. Even it won't unravel all its recent nonsense, it clearly doesn't deserve all the hate below, and also look at OpenAI, Oracle, Palantir, Flock and such.
This is part of what Microsoft doesn't want it printed: layoffs (1, 2, 3), which meant the phone activation division was probably hit, just after their CEO, Nadella, urged people to stop calling bullshit generators (1, 2, 3) "slop" (1, 2, 3).
And yes, being malware, Microsoft products also have the defective-by-design "you own nothing and be happy" (1, 2, 3) apparatus built-in (remember Windows Genuine (sic) Advantage? It was one of those). Now, with further enshittification to go online-only, BlimpTV was proven correct about their "Sinkhole of Support" prediction in their "VISTA SUCKS" video.
Speaking of "Sinkhole of Support", Brian Valentine publicly stated that Microsoft products are NOT engineerd for end-users' security (1, 2, [3](https://techrights.org/search/query?search=Search&set1=any&query1="our products just aren't engineered for security")), but instead, NSA, ICE (1, 2, 3), and recently, He-Who-Must-Not-be-Named. This is a blatant Nationalism-as-a-Service with the end goal to control the end-users and avoid any accountability (the chat control scheme) so reject any proprietary products as soon as you can: here are the Windows and Office 365 "alternatives" (sic).
It's time for linux to get a huge boost and be a real competitor to windows. The main reason I do not use Linux is because (atleast on my laptop) , hardware does not support it. When the time comes and my laptop does support it , I will install ZorinOS without batting an eyelid.
Linux has more issues than hardware support. Im no expert so excuse me if I make some mistakes below but the OS is a failure in design regardless of distro. Both Windows and MacOS have hybrid kernels for a reason. It just is far more stable where a driver crash doesn't break the whole system. Only FOSS with that is DragonflyBSD and that is geared for servers not desktops and has an experimental file system. The package management in Linux has no standard other than every single one being counter intuitive having a package manager do things like sandboxing when the OS itself probably should be doing that and they do not even all do that much. The package have no standard so hardly any software developer or game developer wants to release on Linux when it can only work on some distros and not others so focus always only goes to one or maybe two distros. The file hierarchy is counter intuitive except on GoboLinux. Releasing program updates with the operating system on some distros often leads to outdated insecure programs being installed by default. And so on ...
"Linux has more issues than hardware support." Like anything with a small marketshare support will fall of a cliff when you fracture into niches, if you want to make sure just to stick to mainstream hardware such as workstation editions of PC's/laptops instead of the sleeker looking consumer counterparts.
"I'm no expert so excuse me if I make some mistakes below but the OS is a failure in design regardless of distro. Both Windows and MacOS have hybrid kernels for a reason." This is a hotly debated topic, each with their own advantages.
"It just is far more stable where a driver crash doesn't break the whole system." Linux runs the internet and no, the AWS and Cloudflare outages was not the fault of the Linux kernel or drivers.
"Only FOSS with that is DragonflyBSD and that is geared for servers not desktops and has an experimental file system." DragonflyBSD is a niche of a niche and downstream of its niche (BSD) and itself introduced unique aspects to the operating system, so it's very much not subtible to judge Linux (or even BSD) by. Linux has a good handful of long running, stable and featureful filesystems, Idk where you get this notion that they're experimental.
"The package management in Linux has no standard..every single one being counter intuitive having a package manager do things like sandboxing when the OS itself probably should be doing that..." It's not at all practical for an open system to sanbox all software, that's just crazy.
"They (package managers) do not even all do that much." Look at the man page for each mananer. You'll be surprised.
"The package [managers] have no standard." This is not necessarily a bad thing, each (upstream) distro has their own idioligy and way of handling packages. This isn't a detriment of FOSS it's a foundational feature of it, providing developers and usera to make and run what they want, the way they want and you can't create four different packages then someone can contribute and do it for you.
"The package [managers] have no standard so hardly any software developer or game developer wants to release on Linux when it can only work on some distros and not others so focus always only goes to one or maybe two distros." The reasons why Linux has so few native games (in comparison) is more complex than merly differences in package management, such as Linux itself is niche with a small playerbase, often times large portions of code need to be completely rewritten on a framework compatible with Linux and the unavoidable elephant in room of no kernel level anti cheat that gets all the big game studios with their nickers in a twist. The difference in package managers used to be a problem but now that flatpaks have matured that issue is no longer there. That all being said with how far Wine/Proton has come there is not need to port games over becuase of how good it is now.
"The file hierarchy is counter intuitive except on GoboLinux." Countet intuitive would mean even after explained and understood you'll still be tripping up over yourself because your brain is telling you something different. I believe there is a middle ground, you don't know what's flying but once explained it will seem logical. Watch Fireship Linux directories explained. GoboLinux looks good for basic use cases and configurations.
"Releasing program updates with the operating system on some distros often leads to outdated insecure programs being installed by default." Stable distros backport security patches, this is not a concern.
@George It is more suggestions than pure criticisms. The structure of most should be focused on making a more universal ability to swap out different parts of the system modularly so it can suit different people's needs without being entirely different for everything causing compatibility issues which would help focus development better instead of fracturing it. Servers obviously are different from desktop use when it comes to things like drivers and the behavior of a desktop environment. Games sometimes run better in FreeBSD I've heard which makes sense since the operating system is the basis of a lot of game consoles operating systems so the games were developed geared more for that unless they are PC only games. The term counter intuitive means going against intuition. I have never heard anyone say it makes sense though I am sure some do most don't think it is an intuitive layout. An OS is something you should be able learn quickly not dedicate wasting a big chunk of your time and life learning how to do even ordinary tasks. Unfortunately I do not have the programming skills to build an operating system from the ground up.
I've used debian, arch, fedora based distros or independent ones, the only changes was package manager commands, the other things were the same. File system is the same standards, basic tools are the same since 40 years. You can install a new distro base and keep the same desktop, same disk partition. File hierarchy is not a problem, it works like that since long. Linux bring diversity, different ways to achieve the same things, every apps are portable from a distro to another easily. The only hardware problem i had was once with wifi, and i resolve this by copying a file on a folder and reboot. There is no compatibility issue, i never had any, this can happen sometimes when distros update to another version. I use CachyOs on a desktop, MxLinux on a portable and everything is fine. But yes Linux need a learning curve just as everything computer related
Microsoft's actions really do not make any sense. This obviously is not going to improve their profits but hurt it. This only makes sense if they have gone full on controlled by the US government at this point but there is better ways to install backdoors than using a Microsoft account so what even is the end goal? Cloud computing as a service?