MacInTouch Amazon link...

Apple compatibility issues

Channels
Apple
The only major virtualization limitation I've run up against is that macOS guests can't support GPU hardware acceleration due to restrictions put in place by Apple. This precludes applications that require acceleration, like games and Final Cut Pro.
Does VMware Workstation Pro do a better job with hardware acceleration when run on Linux or Windows? Are these restrictions put in place by Apple based on the hardware or OS?

So, on a Mac with a VM, is Final Cut Pro X completely unusable? Will the VM only access the integrated graphics and not the discrete graphics? I wonder if 1080p would be possible or 720p (I don't do 4k). Of course, even with 1080p, you can create proxy media to speed up editing a single clip, multiclip, or even 4k.

Has anyone tried Logic X in a VM? I wonder how that would do.
 


The first challenge (not yet completed) for me was to migrate a complete, customized Mac system into a virtual machine - e.g. my Snow Leopard system with all the apps, utilities, settings and documents, which I'd built and carefully configured over years of full-time production usage. This seems to require guest access to a whole volume.
You don't need to let the guest OS access a whole volume to do this - as long as you have enough storage space on the primary computer system that is hosting the VM you can create a virtual machine from a cloned .dmg of the original Snow Leopard installation - as per my recent article basically:

1. Clone the original Snow Leopard installation using Carbon Copy Cloner to a .dmg disk image file (either directly onto or copy it to a storage device that can be easily moved to the primary computer system that will host the VM)
2. Create a basic, clean installation OS guest VM - I successfully did this procedure using VMware Fusion but the process should be similar for Parallels but I haven't tested the latter yet
3. Copy the cloned .dmg disk image file into the guest VM
4. Create and format an additional drive within the guest VM that is at least big enough to host the original Snow Leopard installation
5. Install Carbon Copy Cloner into the guest OS
6. Open the copied, cloned .dmg disk image in the guest VM
7. Clone the contents of the cloned .dmg disk image to the secondary, additional drive within the guest VM
8. Change the startup disk within the VM to the additional drive, shutdown the VM, remove the original drive, change the VM settings appropriately for the original Snow Leopard installation
9. Boot up the VM (which should now boot up as the original Snow Leopard installation now running as the VM)
 


Well, Rosetta removal was, indeed, a pain, though somehow I remember it being announced (but maybe I'm wrong)....
As it was announced, one of my Apple contacts called me and told me that IBM was no longer going to license Rosetta to Apple, and I needed to buy my Mac Mini right now. That was the 2010 model. Now I am on a 2014 Mini with the 2010 acting as a server.

(BTW, I installed an update on my 2010 and now my login password is not working. As long as my Apple TV can see the server, I don't care, but a friend and I will look how to resolve this.)
 



I took the opportunity to try installing my copy of AppleWorks for Windows Version 6.2 onto my laptop running Windows 10 Pro. Initially it failed, looking for an installed copy of QuickTime. I downloaded QuickTime 7.7.9 for Windows off the Apple server, along with the AppleWorks for Windows 6.2.2 updater. After installing QT7, installing AppleWorks and the updater went without issue. While I do not have any old files to experiment with, the program seems to work. (Just looks a bit low-res on my HD display due to the age of the product.)
If you have a need to open some old file formats and have a Windows box available, this may a path worth considering.
On a similar note, this same laptop has also been running AirPort Utility 5.6.1 for Windows without issue.
No need for a Windows box. I have both programs (AppleWorks and AirPort Utility) running under Wine on Mojave. I'm using Wineskin, but Crossover or other Wine implementations should work too.
 


VMware does a pretty good job with documentation - Virtual Hardware Specifications for Fusion and Workstation. There are a few more details about configuration in the documentation sets for both products.
I'm really looking for personal experience with FCP X and Logic X within a VM, but I will note your link to documentation.

I'm guessing Logic X "might" be possible (it doesn't need to use the discrete video card and stays on the Integrated graphics without issue - you just need to throw a lot of RAM at it), and FCP X "might" be usable with proxy material. My expectations are low, but I figure it's worth a shot to see if someone has tried this yet.
 


I played with Boot Camp and Parallels when they first came out, but didn't have much use for them at the time. Do most VM's grow storage as needed or does the storage size have to be assigned when set up? What is the advantage of a VM of an older macOS on top of the current macOS vs. simply a bootable partition? Other than, I suppose, fairly quick switching between which I'm less concerned about. If I'm booted into an older OS to use CS6, I will probably be busy there for awhile.
I battled Parallels for a long time; never particularly happy with it, but in the last year or two that has all changed. I work on a MacBook Pro and a 2015 iMac, one in a mobile location in a school system. I get comments from colleagues: "Why does your Windows 10 seem to run faster than my school issued HP?"

I run my Parallels (46 GB) on a USB 256GB SSD, so I can work back and forth with the MacBook Pro and my iMac with no file compatibility issues. The SSD gets hot to the touch, but no issues in terms of how it runs.

I started on a Boot Camp partition - no advantage at all and the obvious need for reboot.

What I have now is my best Windows setup ever.
 


Thanks for the good post about virtual machine advantages, and I'd just appreciate a bit more detail about this one item, which was problematic for me when I tried to set up a VM system and ran out time to sort out the issue. Are you talking about using file-sharing somehow to move files between VM and host systems? How exactly do you make this "easy"?
A real easy way to move files between Parallels and OSX running on the same machine is to use something like Dropbox or Google Drive. Sometimes, when moving files from one platform to another using the Parallels tool, you can run into permission issues. Using Dropbox etc. seems to solve the permissions issue.

Also, note in my office. my server shows up in Windows as a drive "x' where 'x' is some letter.... Thus, within Windows, I can navigate across my whole server and [can be] working on my server transparently within Windows running in Parallels.

Considering that Parallels, and most likely VMware, costs around $79 plus updates for $49 (sometimes $39), I cannot afford the time to use some other free version to avoid these expenditures. I have used both VMware and Parallels and find both easy to use. BTW, Parallels has a tool to expand the Windows C [virtual] drive without erasing the drive.

Probably the worst issue using a virtual machine is that backups on the OSX side see opening Windows in the vm as a huge file that got changed. Hence, backups can take a while after visiting Windows. (Note that Carbon Copy Cloner just replaces the old 'C' drive file with a new one, even if the 'C is 100 gig or larger.)
 



I've read a rumor that the SE will not longer be supported by Apple with the next major iOS upgrade. Any truth to this or did I just fall for some click-bait? :D
 


I've read a rumor that the SE will not longer be supported by Apple with the next major iOS upgrade. Any truth to this or did I just fall for some click-bait? :D
As the owner of an iPhone 6 Plus mentioned in the same rumor, I surely hope it was the latter! Knowing my luck, though...
 


I've read a rumor that the SE will not longer be supported by Apple with the next major iOS upgrade. Any truth to this or did I just fall for some click-bait? :D
Considering that Apple has been selling new SE models this year, it would mean that support is dropped before the warranty expires. That would be odd.
 


I really liked Apple's iWork for a while, until they pulled the file format switch in '09, which left me with a bunch of files I certainly wasn't going to sit there and convert.
...
These days I try to do as much of my writing using Markdown or LaTeX as I can. If I absolutely have to use an office suite, I use the online version of Office or Google Docs - not nearly as full featured, but good enough for my purposes, and I know I can get to it using any web-browser.
The free, open-source, cross platform LibreOffice software is something I install on every machine I use, support, and/or service. It is able to open many legacy file formats including ClarisWorks/AppleWorks, and has a native file format that is open, well documented, and widely supported by other software (I think even recent versions of MS Office can read it). Perhaps it is not as future-proof as LaTeX, but it comes close.
 


I just read that an upgraded MacBook Air and a 13” MacBook Pro without touch bar may finally come out in September - good news for me, since I’d like to replace my 5-year-old MacBook Air, which needs a new battery and is generally getting long in the tooth. The new Macs will probably come with the new OS, Catalina, which I don’t want; I imagine they’ll be outfitted with Intel’s 8th/9th gen processors.

My question: I have bootable clones of my system (with all my stuff, of course, including Mojave). I hope I can simply repopulate a new Mac with my clone. Can anyone tell me whether this will work or not? Thanks in advance.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
The new Macs will probably come with the new OS, Catalina, which I don’t want; I imagine they’ll be outfitted with Intel’s 8th/9th gen processors. My question: I have bootable clones of my system (with all my stuff, of course, including Mojave). I hope I can simply repopulate a new Mac with my clone. Can anyone tell me whether this will work or not?
No, that really never works, because the older macOS lacks software needed to support the newer hardware that didn’t yet exist when the older macOS was created. Apple never back-ports that support, e.g. a new driver for a new screen, or support for its T2 processor. For example, you’ll never boot a touchbar MacBook Pro from macOS 10.12. This is a huge issue for upcoming Macs, given macOS 10.15 Catalina’s incompatibility with all existing 32-bit software and media.
 


When you're trying to use an older machine to replace a newer one (temporarily, perhaps), you may have problems if the newer machine is running newer apps with different file formats (and/or preferences/settings), and the older Mac/macOS won't run the newer app you were using nor open its newer files.
...(And, of course, these imcompatibility issues apply to Apple's own apps, such as the abandoned/changing Aperture, iPhoto, iTunes, FileMaker, iWorks, etc., as well as lots of third-party software. And this will all suddenly get much worse with macOS 10.15 and all new Macs that require it, with its abandonment of all 32-bit software and media,)
I've had more problems with Apple apps changing formats than with MS Office, Nisus, Firefox, or most of the other third-party apps I use. A few months back I had to transfer Pages files between a High Sierra MacBook Air and an El Cap Mac Mini, and found I had to translate them into a different form. After that, I put Nisus on the MacBook Air, so I didn't have to mess around with Pages at all. My usage isn't typical, and as Ric says, this is going to get a lot worse with macOS 10.15.
 


No, that really never works, because the older macOS lacks software needed to support the newer hardware that didn’t yet exist when the older macOS was created.
What about for 2017 iMacs like mine? I ask because, although my machine (purchased in 2019) shipped with 10.14.3, when the model (and therefore its hardware) was new, it shipped with macOS 10.12.4. Does that mean my bootable clone with macOS 10.12.6 should be just fine, or that it is still impossible (or at least not recommended), because my specific machine shipped with a later version?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
What about for 2017 iMacs like mine? I ask because, although my machine (purchased in 2019) shipped with 10.14.3, when the model (and therefore its hardware) was new, it shipped with macOS 10.12.4. Does that mean my bootable clone with macOS 10.12.6 should be just fine, or that it is still impossible (or at least not recommended), because my specific machine shipped with a later version?
No, the only thing that matters is what macOS shipped on that exact hardware configuration originally.

If you buy a Mac Pro 6,1 that Apple's still selling today - a ME253LL/A, which debuted in 2013 - then it will still run its original OS X 10.9.1, no matter what Apple ships on it now. There's no Thunderbolt 3 or T2 controller hardware to conflict with the old Mavericks OS.

Similarly, you can buy a MacBook Air that Apple is still selling at $999 and up (MacBook Air 7,2) and happily run macOS 10.12.6 Sierra on it with no problems, even if Apple delivers it with macOS 10.4 Mojave installed. (I've done this myself.)

But this 2019 MacBook Pro requires macOS 10.14.5, nothing earlier, and this 2019 iMac won't boot anything older than macOS 10.14.4, so you won't be running Mavericks or Sierra or even High Sierra on those.

And if, as expected, the 2019 Mac Pro and the rumored 16-inch MacBook Pro require macOS 10.15, they will never, ever boot any earlier macOS, nor ever run any 32-bit software (other than possibly inside a virtual machine).

Your 2017 iMac looks like a sweet spot on the timeline, as it should be able to boot macOS 10.12, 10.13, 10.14 and 10.15, yet it also has all the power of Thunderbolt 3. Nice!
 


I already own two 2011 17" MacBook Pros that I'm very happy with. I just purchased two 15" 2012 MacBook Pros for my sons last week at an eBay auction, one for $300 and the other for $335 (there was a listing error in the $335 posting, as the HD was actually 500GB and not 750GB, but the seller immediately emailed me and knocked $35 off the purchase price).
From my initial pre-purchase research, I got some bad feelings about some of the eBay sellers and good feelings about others. For me, it all came down to support, perceived honesty, and their ability to communicate back to the buyer or potential buyer, me, in a reasonable amount of time....
We should receive them in a few days. I will report back here as to what condition they arrive in. We have pre-purchased Samsung 860 EVO 1TB SSDs and have already Carbon Copy Cloned, so that they are ready to pop in when the laptops show up. Both MacBook Pros come with 8 GB of RAM, so we'll start there and see if we need to upgrade the RAM to 16 GB. Hopefully, the battery cycles are reasonable.
Don't forget that Collin (dosdude1.com) has that really amazing Mojave Patcher that will permit those old 2011 MacBook Pros to run Mojave quite nicely, once you have installed adequate RAM and an SSD.
 


Your 2017 iMac looks like a sweet spot on the timeline, as it should be able to boot macOS 10.12, 10.13, 10.14 and 10.15, yet it also has all the power of Thunderbolt 3. Nice!
I definitely agree with that! This reminds me of when I discovered that my Classic II could run System 6.0.8 (specifically, 6.0.8L) and also dual-boot System 7.1 with the help of System Picker!
 


Don't forget that Collin (dosdude1.com) has that really amazing Mojave Patcher that will permit those old 2011 MacBook Pros to run Mojave quite nicely, once you have installed adequate RAM and an SSD.
Barry, I looked at it when he first released it. These 2011 17" models are not Metal-compatible, so I would only be able to use the Integrated video and not the higher-end discrete video. Since I need the discrete card for FCP X, running an external monitor, etc., this won't work for me, and I will likely stay on Sierra with these 2011 MacBook Pros. The 2012's, on the other hand, are Metal-compatible, and it appears that they will work fine all the way up to 10.15 Catalina.
 


A friend brought me his 2009 MacBook 6,1 (white polycarbonate) to see if it could be upgraded. I thought for sure it would be stuck at Snow Leopard. I am surprised to find it can go to High Sierra.

It took forever to upgrade, because, although Apple says you can jump from Mountain Lion to High Sierra, I couldn’t make that happen with this machine. So it was Snow Leopard >> Mountain Lion >> Sierra >> High Sierra.

There was Franz Kafka hilarity at one point after I installed Sierra, where Apple has a link on an official webpage to ‘upgrade’ to High Sierra, but the link takes you to the App Store, which insists you must have the latest macOS to sign into the App Store to get the upgrade. Huh? I have gotten wise with age and only clicked on the link and tried to sign in four times.

I have USB thumb drives for each OS install going back to Snow Leopard, so that crisis averted.

I am going to drop an SSD in there to make it snappy. Funny, Snow Leopard runs fast on that machine.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Your 2017 iMac looks like a sweet spot on the timeline, as it should be able to boot macOS 10.12, 10.13, 10.14 and 10.15, yet it also has all the power of Thunderbolt 3. Nice!
In fact, I think a 2017 iMac 5K Retina like the following is a slam dunk at $2,549 with 1TB SSD, two Thunderbolt 3 ports, Radeon Pro 580/8GB, P3 wide-gamut color, 8GB user-upgradable RAM (up to 64GB at 2400MHz), SDXC Card slot, four USB 3 ports, 4.2GHz quad-core i7, and macOS 10.12 compatibility....


I hope to test one soon, with the idea of creating a powerful desktop system and mirroring that to a 2015 MacBook Pro for travel (and backup), both running macOS 10.12 (or whatever else we want to run after that).
 


I think a 2017 iMac 5K Retina like the following is a slam dunk at $2,549 with 1TB SSD, two Thunderbolt 3 ports, Radeon Pro 580/8GB, P3 wide-gamut color, 8GB user-upgradable RAM (up to 64GB at 2400MHz), SDXC Card slot, four USB 3 ports, 4.2GHz quad-core i7, and macOS 10.12 compatibility....
Would this machine be capable of running macOS 10.15, with its 64-bit and "Metal" requirements? Or will it be "stuck" at Mojave? (You can see how confused some of us non-tech types are by the new macOS 10.15 threshold.) If it is capable, then you're right... this could be a "magic" sweet spot for iMac upgrade.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Would this machine be capable of running macOS 10.15, with its 64-bit and "Metal" requirements?
It must to be capable of handling Catalina (for those who want to run it), given its Radeon Pro 580 with 8 GB of VRAM and everything else (and should outperform almost any MacBook Pro, perhaps excepting the most expensive new Core i9 models). Meanwhile, prompted by Thom Hogan's comments, I've been looking at wide-gamut monitors, and as he suggested, any standalone displays with that kind of capability are very pricy (not to mention lacking 5K resolution, which is extremely rare).
 


It has to be capable of handling Catalina (for those who want to run it...), given its Radeon Pro 580 with 8 GB of VRAM and everything else.
Thanks, Ric! I'm not "committed" to running Catalina, but I just don't want to invest $2-3 grand while buying into a system "locked-out" of future security updates and (likely) abandoned file systems over the coming decade. For me, it's not an income-producing decision. But this looks like an excellent update from my 2011 iMac 27", which is "stuck" at High Sierra. I highly value your careful and helpful judgement!
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
But this looks like an excellent update from my 2011 iMac 27", which is "stuck" at High Sierra.
There's a distinct divide between 2011 and 2012 Macs, it seems. MacBook Pros are similar - my 2011 model can't run macOS 10.14 Mojave (and it suffers with the handcuffs of having only USB 2, not USB 3), while an identical-looking 2012 MacBook Pro 13" handles Mojave fine (and offers the massively faster USB 3 ports). I'm not sure if the 2012 MacBook Pro 13" will work with Catalina, though.
 


There's a distinct divide between 2011 and 2012 Macs, it seems. MacBook Pros are similar - my 2011 model can't run macOS 10.14 Mojave (and it suffers with the handcuffs of having only USB 2, not USB 3), while an identical-looking 2012 MacBook Pro 13" handles Mojave fine (and offers the massively faster USB 3 ports). I'm not sure if the 2012 MacBook Pro 13" will work with Catalina, though.
Catalina works fine on the 13" 2012 MacBook Pros, including the non-Retina workhorses. I currently have it running on an 13" i7-based non-Retina 2012 MacBook Pro, and performance is very reasonable for beta software, even with a spinning disk.

The main issue with the pre-2012 MacBook Pros (and most other Macs unsupported in Mojave) is that their graphics systems are not compatible with the Metal API.

FWIW, many older, unsupported Macs, even some that go back to 2008, can work quite well with Mojave (and even Catalina) by running them with SIP disabled and treating them essentially as Hackintoshes. As is common with Hackintoshes, there can be some minor issues, but many people find the issues to be less important than the ability to keep their systems running a current OS. The main exception are 11,x and 12,x iMacs with AMD Radeon HD 5xxx and 6xxx series GPUs. Mojave will install and run on those machines but will be essentially unusable, because Mojave removed all hardware acceleration support for those particular GPUs.
 



I just read that an upgraded MacBook Air and a 13” MacBook Pro without touch bar may finally come out in September ...
I tried to find out more about this, as I would prefer function keys to a touch bar, and it would also mean my current MacBook Pro can be kept as one more High Sierra Mac that can work with my Flextight scanner (whose 32-bit proprietary software will no longer be supported after 10.14). Where did you spot this rumour?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Where did you spot this rumour?
FYI:
Forbes said:
Apple Plans To Ship 16-Inch MacBook Pro This Year, Says IHS Markit -- Offers More Details
... Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said earlier this year that Apple plans a 16-inch MacBook Pro. Apple is also expected to update the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro and Retina MacBook Air with the new MacOS Catalina and new processors in September, according to Lin. Apple did a processor refresh of the 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro in May.
 





Ric Ford

MacInTouch
In fact, I think a 2017 iMac 5K Retina like the following is a slam dunk at $2,549 with 1TB SSD, two Thunderbolt 3 ports, Radeon Pro 580/8GB, P3 wide-gamut color, 8GB user-upgradable RAM (up to 64GB at 2400MHz), SDXC Card slot, four USB 3 ports, 4.2GHz quad-core i7, and macOS 10.12 compatibility....
  • It boots and runs macOS 10.12.6
  • It comes with macOS 10.14.3 installed.
  • It boots from FileVault-encrypted external drives (both Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3) with no T2/Secure Boot roadblocks.
  • It boots, installs, and runs Linux Mint 19.1 Cinnamon with WiFi and internal SSD support from a "Live USB" (using Compatibility mode with third-party mouse and keyboard connected via USB cables to get started). This defaults to 4K (2160p) resolution, making objects on screen extremely tiny, but you can change that (e.g. to 1440p) in Preferences > Display.

Here's a Geekbench CPU test - this 2017 iMac 5K quad-core lags a 2018 Mac Mini 6-core*

Graphics are an entirely different story, however:

Unless you add an eGPU, that is:

iMac 5K CPU performance is virtually tied with a top-end 2018 MacBook Pro 13" (ignoring graphics):

I ran storage benchmarks on the internal iMac 1TB SSD, booting from macOS Mojave:

Write (MB/s)Read (MB/s)
Blackmagic Disk Speed Test (5GB)19662460
AJA System Test Lite (4GB)21382875


Let's try it after booting macOS Sierra (10.12.6)**:
Write (MB/s)Read (MB/s)
Blackmagic Disk Speed Test (5GB)20032438
AJA System Test Lite (4GB)22472697



*Geekbench versions were slightly different here, 4.3.0 vs. 4.3.1.

**These results were not very consistent from run to run. (I don't know why not - perhaps cache effects?)

#benchmarks #performance #egpu #GeekBench #MacMini
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
  • It boots and runs macOS 10.12.6
  • It comes with macOS 10.14.3 installed.
Interestingly, even after booting with Command-Shift-Option-R, the Internet Recovery installer insists on installing Mojave, which came on this refurb computer but was not the original macOS for this 2017 iMac — what originally shipped with this model was macOS 10.12.4 (16F2073).

What I'm wrestling with is the fact that the iMac would not boot from a Recovery partition I created using Carbon Copy Cloner while booted from macOS 10.12.6. (It does boot from a macOS 10.14.5 recovery partition.)
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Interestingly, even after booting with Command-Shift-Option-R, the Internet Recovery installer insists on installing Mojave, which came on this refurb computer but was not the original macOS for this 2017 iMac — what originally shipped with this model was macOS 10.12.4 (16F2073).
What I'm wrestling with is the fact that the iMac would not boot from a Recovery partition I created using Carbon Copy Cloner while booted from macOS 10.12.6. (It does boot from a macOS 10.14.5 recovery partition.)
I fixed it thought I fixed it but didn't. :-(

I reinstalled macOS Sierra from a bootable Sierra installer flash drive. This reinstalled macOS 10.12.6 on the iMac's internal drive, and it created a macOS Sierra Recovery partition that will won't let me reinstall macOS Sierra (rather than but only, instead, macOS Mojave). Cool! Not cool!

#tips
 


I reinstalled macOS Sierra from a bootable Sierra installer flash drive.
How does one go about making such a drive? Or is it now impossible, since Sierra is no longer current? I still think in terms of a much simpler time involving floppies and optical discs. ;)

I'm not completely sure whether I have the full installer for macOS 10.12.6 laying around someplace.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
How does one go about making such a drive? Or is it now impossible, since Sierra is no longer current? I still think in terms of a much simpler time involving floppies and optical discs. ;)
I'm not completely sure whether I have the full installer for macOS 10.12.6 laying around someplace.
You'll need the Sierra installer app (which Apple no longer provides for macOS Mojave and later), and I generally use DiskMakerX to get the job done (though you can jump through weird Apple hoops in an alternative procedure, if you want).
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
FYI:
Bleeping Computer said:
Microsoft Blocks Some Macs From Updating to Windows 10 Version 1903
Microsoft says that some Macs running Windows 10 may be blocked from updating to Windows 10 version 1903 because of a compatibility block triggered by older software or hardware.

Apple Macs "introduced before 2012 or newer Mac devices with older versions Apple Boot Camp or Windows Support Software drivers installed" will not be able to install the Windows 10 May 2019 Feature Update according to a new support document published by Redmond.

The Mac users who will be blocked from updating to Windows 10 version 1903 will get a "Mac HAL Driver - machaldriver.sys: Your PC has a driver or service that isn't ready for this version of Windows 10" error message.

More to the point, all Macs with a MacHALDriver.sys from September 24, 2011 01:57:09 or older within the \Windows\system32\drivers folder are impacted by this issue.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts