There's a simpler way to switch spaces. Just drag a window as you normally do. When you're dragging a window and hold your mouse pinned to the edge of the space/desktop, after a brief delay akin to the spring-loaded folder delay, the space will switch (if there is one on the other side of the edge you're pinned to).
Here's an example. Since multiple-monitor desktops are arranged in a horizontal fashion, you will most likely want to arrange your spaces like an elevator. If you are on the middle floor you want to go to the top floor, grab a window and drag the titlebar to where it's touching the Mac menubar and hold. After about 2 seconds, the space slides up to the top floor. The spaces don't wrap though, so to go to the bottom floor directly from the top, you're better off using the other methods. But if you just wanted to go down a floor, drag the window to the bottom of the visible screen as far as you can (the dock won't unhide since you're dragging the window) and after a brief delay the space will go down a level.
Suggested use to fight clutter: keep one space "clean". Your "quiet space". And when you have 2000 windows open and you need to just concentrate on one window, drag it to your quiet space (free of all that clutter) and concentrate on it. Don't leave things in your quiet space. Close them or drag them back somewhere else. A wonderful way to focus that's better than "Hide Others".
Is this currently the case with spaces? Or is it a wish? If it is currently the case (which i imagine it is), can you also switch spaces by pinning your mouse alone to the edge of the screen?
Just because there was preliminary alpha-quality support (code that a retarded monkey managed to type by slamming its head onto a keyboard and rolling it around a few thousand times) doesn't mean it should have been advertised as a supported feature. MS announces a lot of things that just don't work...doesn't mean that it works. It would be akin to Apple saying ZFS is supported in Mac OS X 10.5. NO! It's not really supported.
By your statement, Mac OS X does not have a Finder. This is evidenced by all the "Fix The Fucking Finder" complaints from even dedicated Mac users. So Mac users get to complain about inaccurate statements from Windows users. But it's perfectly OK for Mac users to make up inaccurate statements about Windows. Why don't you just take it a step further and say that Windows XP does not have multiple monitor support either? Of course, you will probably call me a Microsoft lover, even though I am far from it, and tell me to go buy a PC.
Yeah, I was supporting Windows 3.1 (or NT 3.5?) machines with 3 physical screens (bank trading floor environment) back in 1996. Granted it was 3rd parties providing driver support, but...
This is quite different.
The point the article was making is that Windows doesn't do this with all applications. What you had was a situation where the system was specifically designed to do that.
From what I remember, using MS's solution, didn't work with many, or possibly, most programs. Programs would freeze, crash, bring the entire machine down, etc. It seemed as though Windows programs are linked to the "normal" screen. moving to more than one screen caused problems.
"can you also switch spaces by pinning your mouse alone to the edge of the screen?"
Already in Tiger, dragging your mouse to the desktop edges already has meanings. Start your screen saver, Unhide your dock, and probably some others. Spaces can add to these shortcuts without disrupting these functions because you're dragging a window when you hit the edges. So, while anything can change before the end of October, just moving the mouse to the edges doesn't activate a spaces feature.
By your statement, Mac OS X does not have a Finder. This is evidenced by all the "Fix The Fucking Finder" complaints from even dedicated Mac users.
Yes, you're right. Mac OS X did not have a Finder...until 10.5. This makes my earlier comment very valid. You're not a MS lover...I'm not a MS hater. I'm just telling it like it is. If no line was drawn, MS and Apple could declare everything as a feature even with the absolute minimum support. And they sometimes do. It's not right and you have to look beyond their words and judge whether said feature is really there or if it's some ridiculous hack put in to make it sound like the feature is all there.
How would you feel if Apple had left Quartz 2D Extreme in the state that it was in when Tiger was released but Apple declared it as a feature? I dunno about you but if someone said to me that his OS had Quartz 2D Extreme-like abilities and I replied back "well Mac OS X has that too, it's called Quartz 2D Extreme", I'd feel pretty stupid 'cuz it's not true. It doesn't work.
Granted everyone has a different threshold. Some people can take on a lot of bullshit before calling it bullshit. Nothing is white or black in life.
is the word of the day (again) for iLeopard, the unofficial voice of The Mac OS X Leopard system. he is a big proponent of Spaces and can't take being caged from the public for too much longer.
Find out more about Leopard and Spaces tomorrow at iLeopard.
This was my first computer: an Amiga. I always thought it was called an Amiga 64, but apparently that is not the case.
You doubtless had Commodore 64 (there was also a Commodore 128) in mind.
I have an Amiga 500 and three Amiga 4000s (one is towered, one can emulate classic Macintosh up to OS 7.5). All are working except the 500 which has a dead HD.
Palegolas. Yeah, I think you are right. It was really my older brothers computer, but was the first computer I ever used. I was about four or five at the time we got it (just played games on it). I just got the picture off google images, by typing in Amiga 64, and looking for the computer which looked most like it. I'm certain that was the one. It may well have been called the Amiga 64 here is Australia; we certainly called it that. It was a good little machine. California games, and street fighter saw some serious action on there in its time. Oh well, I'd better stop harping on about it, lest someone chastise me for going off topic.
In regard to spaces, we can commend Apple for not implementing a beryl cube. You see, sometime Apple doesn't go only for eye candy (not that i think they do). I reckon the spaces grid view is great. I had played around with Virtue desktop for a bit, but didn't like the difficulty of moving windows to other spaces. I reckon with spaces, i'll actually make use of virtual desktops.
Might be confusing it with the Commodore 64, which preceded the Amiga. The picture you showed is the Commodore Amiga 500. The following is a list of all Commodore Amiga models that were produced (not including clones & not in order of production).
How is "A couple years before Switcher Ellen Feiss was even born" relevant besides the word "switcher?"
Using that kind of clause in the wrong context is something gradeschool kids are taught not to do, when sorting sentences within a paragraph and removing extraneous information.
How is "A couple years before Switcher Ellen Feiss was even born" relevant besides the word "switcher?"
Using that kind of clause in the wrong context is something gradeschool kids are taught not to do, when sorting sentences within a paragraph and removing extraneous information.
I believe not, otherwise you could not switch spaces by clicking the app icon in the dock as described in the article - it may not be there. My understanding is that the author wanted to say that spaces can compensate for multiple minimized windows cluttered in the dock, e.g. instead of minimizing windows one could spread them between multiple spaces. Not sure this is good idea though. You have to try it to know but I think most users will want to keep all the windows of one app in one space (well, possibly some exceptions for Finder and Safari windows).
That's a bummer. I'd want a space for law school, and a couple spaces for different home stuff, and I'd want them each to have a dock of distinctly different composition.
Surely there must be some level of Dock customization though, but maybe only as far as minimized windows go.
I just wrote this to the author, but figured it might be helpful to discuss here. I love my QuickSilver and have grown accustomed to switching apps that way, and having main App windows Maximized as much as possible. anyone know an easier way to do this on Mac OS? thanks!
--
hey Prince,
nice article on Spaces...a big help in explaining how this feature will actually be implemented. thanks! I was wondering, however, if you know whether Apple has plans to make Maximizing in OS X more like Windows XP.
I'm a longtime Mac user and prefer most things about the Mac, but I also generally prefer to live in one app at a time and Maximize it to take up the full screen (helps a lot when writing in WriteRoom or making music in Ableton Live, for example). then I can Command-Tab around, or use QuickSilver to get to a specific app faster. it's great!
in FireFox on XP at work, I'm good. but in Safari or Mail or any other random program on the Mac, Maximizing involves a lot of work: 1) trying to see if the Zoom button will do it, 2) since Zoom usually fails at this, manually placing each program's window at the top left of the screen (trying to get it just...pixel...right), 3) dragging the bottom right of the window to the bottom right of the screen. ugh! by then I'm usually not focused on the work/play I was about to do.
since Apple is moving more of their programs towards single-window mode (iPhoto and iTunes were already there, as well as Logic and Final Cut...now iMovie too...and Safari has tabs and tab controls so it can be used in a single window) and getting rid of drawers in favor of sidebars so each app COULD live better in its own window, it seems like a logical step for them to address better Zooming/Maximizing, unless some third party developer has already nailed this?
The iMacs obviously had a port for a secondary display that Apple only allowed to mirror the display (I believe there was a hack that re-enabled screen spanning, thus the iMac was clearly capable of it). To me that is the very definition of "crippling" a hardware device. Just like the way my Verizon phone is crippled to not allow Bluetooth syncing (that it is capable of doing it).
Well, if your going to put it THAT way... you're right. Ya know, I never really understood the point of "mirroring" video from the iMac. It's not like you carry one around with you and hook it up to a projector. Having never owned one of any model, I can't say what you'd do with it, unless it supported much higher resolutions than the integral screen, perhaps allowing you to use the investment in a 15" or 17" iMac computer while viewing it on an expanded external monitor, say a 19" or larger BUT at a higher resolution for more desktop area.
And I've got a damn Verizon Razr with the locked out BlueTooth AND the stupid ring volume control right where you grab it to pick it up. But since AT&T doesn't work in my home, I'm stuck till Apple buys the telco giant and forces them into consumer-care compliance.
I still think whacking at Windoze is okay, though, as long as you do it gently.
i've had a go on an earlier leopard beta and spaces was one of the more accomplished features in terms of performance on a single cpu 1.8ghz g5.
i didn't play with it long enough to see what impact on my workflow it will have. I currently have 2 monitors at work and i'd recommend that to anyone doing any sort of production work (esp as u can pick up 2 19-20" monitors at ridiculous prices compared to even 2 years ago.) I'm curious how spaces will behave on across two monitors.
i reckon i might be assigning a space to my most used apps and one for all the others. It will also benefit peeps switching over from windows who r used to maximised apps.
regarding the amiga - definitely the best hardware / os combo ever. Way ahead of its time, great gaming and video machine in its day. I have many a fond memory playing SWOS etc. but also EA's deluxe paint and apps such as photogenics and imagine. I had a video monitor which whilst excellent for games was too lo-res for the gfx sw so i'd run them in hi res interlaced mode on another (virtual) screen. The flickering was counteracted by wearing really dark sunglasses.
i recall the amigaguide help system which was very much akin to html prior to the explosion of the web. Recall creating my 1st hypertext document. For me the Amiga then was what the mac is now - innovative, productive and creative. The biggest diff? the games! The amiga in europe rivaled sega and nintendo as a games machine for the late 80s early 90s. Then came the pc gaming wiht wing commander and doom whilst commodeore went belly up. </end rant>
I find it a bit disappointing that there isn't an option to make multiple monitors their own space. I would assume that most people using multiple monitors would still consider one of them the primary display. It seems like it would be nice to switch multiple apps from the primary to secondary display by using Spaces. Is there some sort of functionality for that already?
Exactly what I was thinking -- the end of this article is a huge and surprising disappointment if true. Is that REALLY the one and only way Spaces handles multiple monitors? If I have a MacBook Pro connected to a cinema display, I want different spaces for each monitor, with their own menu bars.
Can anyone who's used Leopard shed any more light on this?
Exactly what I was thinking -- the end of this article is a huge and surprising disappointment if true. Is that REALLY the one and only way Spaces handles multiple monitors? If I have a MacBook Pro connected to a cinema display, I want different spaces for each monitor, with their own menu bars.
Can anyone who's used Leopard shed any more light on this?
The article is accurate about how multiple monitors work. You cannot swap one screen for another. However, I have use a MacBook Pro with a Cinema Display and there is a way you can sort of do what I think you are talking about.
I use my cinema display as my main "work" monitor. When I am coding, working in Photoshop, etc., that is in front. On my laptop monitor (sitting on a Griffin laptop stand to the left) I have stuff like transmit, iTerm, iChat, iTunes, etc. I use the things over there as my ongoing or diagnostics monitor.
So, what I've done is set those ongoing "monitoring" apps to be visible on every space. My main monitor has a space for Photoshop, a space for TextMate, a space for CSS Edit, etc. So, when I change from one space to another, the main monitor changes and the diagnostic monitor does not.
The one thing I would REALLY love to see is having an option for apps to appear on multiple but not all screens. For example, I might want Firefox to appear on 3 of the 4 spaces or whatever. To me, that would be ideal, but all in good time.
So, what I've done is set those ongoing "monitoring" apps to be visible on every space. My main monitor has a space for Photoshop, a space for TextMate, a space for CSS Edit, etc. So, when I change from one space to another, the main monitor changes and the diagnostic monitor does not.
One thing the review did not mention is that you can move the spaces themselves around.
When are you in the zoomed out level viewing all spaces you can grab them by the top of the space and rearrange them. So, if you'd like to change or move priority of the various spaces you can even do that with no problems.
Comments
There's a simpler way to switch spaces. Just drag a window as you normally do. When you're dragging a window and hold your mouse pinned to the edge of the space/desktop, after a brief delay akin to the spring-loaded folder delay, the space will switch (if there is one on the other side of the edge you're pinned to).
Here's an example. Since multiple-monitor desktops are arranged in a horizontal fashion, you will most likely want to arrange your spaces like an elevator. If you are on the middle floor you want to go to the top floor, grab a window and drag the titlebar to where it's touching the Mac menubar and hold. After about 2 seconds, the space slides up to the top floor. The spaces don't wrap though, so to go to the bottom floor directly from the top, you're better off using the other methods. But if you just wanted to go down a floor, drag the window to the bottom of the visible screen as far as you can (the dock won't unhide since you're dragging the window) and after a brief delay the space will go down a level.
Suggested use to fight clutter: keep one space "clean". Your "quiet space". And when you have 2000 windows open and you need to just concentrate on one window, drag it to your quiet space (free of all that clutter) and concentrate on it. Don't leave things in your quiet space. Close them or drag them back somewhere else. A wonderful way to focus that's better than "Hide Others".
Is this currently the case with spaces? Or is it a wish? If it is currently the case (which i imagine it is), can you also switch spaces by pinning your mouse alone to the edge of the screen?
Just because there was preliminary alpha-quality support (code that a retarded monkey managed to type by slamming its head onto a keyboard and rolling it around a few thousand times) doesn't mean it should have been advertised as a supported feature. MS announces a lot of things that just don't work...doesn't mean that it works. It would be akin to Apple saying ZFS is supported in Mac OS X 10.5. NO! It's not really supported.
By your statement, Mac OS X does not have a Finder. This is evidenced by all the "Fix The Fucking Finder" complaints from even dedicated Mac users. So Mac users get to complain about inaccurate statements from Windows users. But it's perfectly OK for Mac users to make up inaccurate statements about Windows. Why don't you just take it a step further and say that Windows XP does not have multiple monitor support either? Of course, you will probably call me a Microsoft lover, even though I am far from it, and tell me to go buy a PC.
Yeah, I was supporting Windows 3.1 (or NT 3.5?) machines with 3 physical screens (bank trading floor environment) back in 1996. Granted it was 3rd parties providing driver support, but...
This is quite different.
The point the article was making is that Windows doesn't do this with all applications. What you had was a situation where the system was specifically designed to do that.
From what I remember, using MS's solution, didn't work with many, or possibly, most programs. Programs would freeze, crash, bring the entire machine down, etc. It seemed as though Windows programs are linked to the "normal" screen. moving to more than one screen caused problems.
"can you also switch spaces by pinning your mouse alone to the edge of the screen?"
Already in Tiger, dragging your mouse to the desktop edges already has meanings. Start your screen saver, Unhide your dock, and probably some others. Spaces can add to these shortcuts without disrupting these functions because you're dragging a window when you hit the edges. So, while anything can change before the end of October, just moving the mouse to the edges doesn't activate a spaces feature.
By your statement, Mac OS X does not have a Finder. This is evidenced by all the "Fix The Fucking Finder" complaints from even dedicated Mac users.
Yes, you're right. Mac OS X did not have a Finder...until 10.5. This makes my earlier comment very valid. You're not a MS lover...I'm not a MS hater. I'm just telling it like it is. If no line was drawn, MS and Apple could declare everything as a feature even with the absolute minimum support. And they sometimes do. It's not right and you have to look beyond their words and judge whether said feature is really there or if it's some ridiculous hack put in to make it sound like the feature is all there.
How would you feel if Apple had left Quartz 2D Extreme in the state that it was in when Tiger was released but Apple declared it as a feature? I dunno about you but if someone said to me that his OS had Quartz 2D Extreme-like abilities and I replied back "well Mac OS X has that too, it's called Quartz 2D Extreme", I'd feel pretty stupid 'cuz it's not true. It doesn't work.
Granted everyone has a different threshold. Some people can take on a lot of bullshit before calling it bullshit. Nothing is white or black in life.
"Rrrrarr"
is the word of the day (again) for iLeopard, the unofficial voice of The Mac OS X Leopard system. he is a big proponent of Spaces and can't take being caged from the public for too much longer.
Find out more about Leopard and Spaces tomorrow at iLeopard.
This was my first computer: an Amiga. I always thought it was called an Amiga 64, but apparently that is not the case.
You doubtless had Commodore 64 (there was also a Commodore 128) in mind.
I have an Amiga 500 and three Amiga 4000s (one is towered, one can emulate classic Macintosh up to OS 7.5). All are working except the 500 which has a dead HD.
Palegolas. Yeah, I think you are right. It was really my older brothers computer, but was the first computer I ever used. I was about four or five at the time we got it (just played games on it). I just got the picture off google images, by typing in Amiga 64, and looking for the computer which looked most like it. I'm certain that was the one. It may well have been called the Amiga 64 here is Australia; we certainly called it that. It was a good little machine. California games, and street fighter saw some serious action on there in its time. Oh well, I'd better stop harping on about it, lest someone chastise me for going off topic.
In regard to spaces, we can commend Apple for not implementing a beryl cube. You see, sometime Apple doesn't go only for eye candy (not that i think they do). I reckon the spaces grid view is great. I had played around with Virtue desktop for a bit, but didn't like the difficulty of moving windows to other spaces. I reckon with spaces, i'll actually make use of virtual desktops.
Might be confusing it with the Commodore 64, which preceded the Amiga. The picture you showed is the Commodore Amiga 500. The following is a list of all Commodore Amiga models that were produced (not including clones & not in order of production).
Amiga 500
Amiga 500+
Amiga 600
Amiga 1000
Amiga 1200
Amiga 1500
Amiga 2000
Amiga 2500
Amiga 3000
Amiga 3000T
Amiga 4000
Amiga 4000T
Amiga CD32
CDTV
Using that kind of clause in the wrong context is something gradeschool kids are taught not to do, when sorting sentences within a paragraph and removing extraneous information.
-=|Mgkwho
How is "A couple years before Switcher Ellen Feiss was even born" relevant besides the word "switcher?"
Using that kind of clause in the wrong context is something gradeschool kids are taught not to do, when sorting sentences within a paragraph and removing extraneous information.
-=|Mgkwho
it was a quip. I enjoyed it.
I believe not, otherwise you could not switch spaces by clicking the app icon in the dock as described in the article - it may not be there. My understanding is that the author wanted to say that spaces can compensate for multiple minimized windows cluttered in the dock, e.g. instead of minimizing windows one could spread them between multiple spaces. Not sure this is good idea though. You have to try it to know but I think most users will want to keep all the windows of one app in one space (well, possibly some exceptions for Finder and Safari windows).
That's a bummer. I'd want a space for law school, and a couple spaces for different home stuff, and I'd want them each to have a dock of distinctly different composition.
Surely there must be some level of Dock customization though, but maybe only as far as minimized windows go.
--
hey Prince,
nice article on Spaces...a big help in explaining how this feature will actually be implemented. thanks! I was wondering, however, if you know whether Apple has plans to make Maximizing in OS X more like Windows XP.
I'm a longtime Mac user and prefer most things about the Mac, but I also generally prefer to live in one app at a time and Maximize it to take up the full screen (helps a lot when writing in WriteRoom or making music in Ableton Live, for example). then I can Command-Tab around, or use QuickSilver to get to a specific app faster. it's great!
in FireFox on XP at work, I'm good. but in Safari or Mail or any other random program on the Mac, Maximizing involves a lot of work: 1) trying to see if the Zoom button will do it, 2) since Zoom usually fails at this, manually placing each program's window at the top left of the screen (trying to get it just...pixel...right), 3) dragging the bottom right of the window to the bottom right of the screen. ugh! by then I'm usually not focused on the work/play I was about to do.
since Apple is moving more of their programs towards single-window mode (iPhoto and iTunes were already there, as well as Logic and Final Cut...now iMovie too...and Safari has tabs and tab controls so it can be used in a single window) and getting rid of drawers in favor of sidebars so each app COULD live better in its own window, it seems like a logical step for them to address better Zooming/Maximizing, unless some third party developer has already nailed this?
what do you think? is there a way?
best,
Jake
The iMacs obviously had a port for a secondary display that Apple only allowed to mirror the display (I believe there was a hack that re-enabled screen spanning, thus the iMac was clearly capable of it). To me that is the very definition of "crippling" a hardware device. Just like the way my Verizon phone is crippled to not allow Bluetooth syncing (that it is capable of doing it).
Well, if your going to put it THAT way... you're right. Ya know, I never really understood the point of "mirroring" video from the iMac. It's not like you carry one around with you and hook it up to a projector. Having never owned one of any model, I can't say what you'd do with it, unless it supported much higher resolutions than the integral screen, perhaps allowing you to use the investment in a 15" or 17" iMac computer while viewing it on an expanded external monitor, say a 19" or larger BUT at a higher resolution for more desktop area.
And I've got a damn Verizon Razr with the locked out BlueTooth AND the stupid ring volume control right where you grab it to pick it up. But since AT&T doesn't work in my home, I'm stuck till Apple buys the telco giant and forces them into consumer-care compliance.
I still think whacking at Windoze is okay, though, as long as you do it gently.
i didn't play with it long enough to see what impact on my workflow it will have. I currently have 2 monitors at work and i'd recommend that to anyone doing any sort of production work (esp as u can pick up 2 19-20" monitors at ridiculous prices compared to even 2 years ago.) I'm curious how spaces will behave on across two monitors.
i reckon i might be assigning a space to my most used apps and one for all the others. It will also benefit peeps switching over from windows who r used to maximised apps.
regarding the amiga - definitely the best hardware / os combo ever. Way ahead of its time, great gaming and video machine in its day. I have many a fond memory playing SWOS etc. but also EA's deluxe paint and apps such as photogenics and imagine. I had a video monitor which whilst excellent for games was too lo-res for the gfx sw so i'd run them in hi res interlaced mode on another (virtual) screen. The flickering was counteracted by wearing really dark sunglasses.
i recall the amigaguide help system which was very much akin to html prior to the explosion of the web. Recall creating my 1st hypertext document. For me the Amiga then was what the mac is now - innovative, productive and creative. The biggest diff? the games! The amiga in europe rivaled sega and nintendo as a games machine for the late 80s early 90s. Then came the pc gaming wiht wing commander and doom whilst commodeore went belly up. </end rant>
I find it a bit disappointing that there isn't an option to make multiple monitors their own space. I would assume that most people using multiple monitors would still consider one of them the primary display. It seems like it would be nice to switch multiple apps from the primary to secondary display by using Spaces. Is there some sort of functionality for that already?
Exactly what I was thinking -- the end of this article is a huge and surprising disappointment if true. Is that REALLY the one and only way Spaces handles multiple monitors? If I have a MacBook Pro connected to a cinema display, I want different spaces for each monitor, with their own menu bars.
Can anyone who's used Leopard shed any more light on this?
Exactly what I was thinking -- the end of this article is a huge and surprising disappointment if true. Is that REALLY the one and only way Spaces handles multiple monitors? If I have a MacBook Pro connected to a cinema display, I want different spaces for each monitor, with their own menu bars.
Can anyone who's used Leopard shed any more light on this?
The article is accurate about how multiple monitors work. You cannot swap one screen for another. However, I have use a MacBook Pro with a Cinema Display and there is a way you can sort of do what I think you are talking about.
I use my cinema display as my main "work" monitor. When I am coding, working in Photoshop, etc., that is in front. On my laptop monitor (sitting on a Griffin laptop stand to the left) I have stuff like transmit, iTerm, iChat, iTunes, etc. I use the things over there as my ongoing or diagnostics monitor.
So, what I've done is set those ongoing "monitoring" apps to be visible on every space. My main monitor has a space for Photoshop, a space for TextMate, a space for CSS Edit, etc. So, when I change from one space to another, the main monitor changes and the diagnostic monitor does not.
The one thing I would REALLY love to see is having an option for apps to appear on multiple but not all screens. For example, I might want Firefox to appear on 3 of the 4 spaces or whatever. To me, that would be ideal, but all in good time.
Feels like I'm reading an essay by Daniel Eran Dilger on RoughlyDrafted.com
Sometimes, though, Daniel goes overboard, and isn't always right.
So, what I've done is set those ongoing "monitoring" apps to be visible on every space. My main monitor has a space for Photoshop, a space for TextMate, a space for CSS Edit, etc. So, when I change from one space to another, the main monitor changes and the diagnostic monitor does not.
Very good tips -- thank you.
When are you in the zoomed out level viewing all spaces you can grab them by the top of the space and rearrange them. So, if you'd like to change or move priority of the various spaces you can even do that with no problems.