In my most recent build, a G3258 @ 4.2Ghz, 2x4GB of DDR3, on a Gigabyte H81 board, I used a 160GB WD Blue HDD 7200RPM drive. It took noticeably longer to install, almost painfully so. And it takes time to boot, so much that you would prefer not to boot very often, but it's not quite to the point that I would call it "excruciating". And things like Windows Updates pin the Disk at 100% for extended periods of time, slowing down opening other programs. Scans like Malwarebytes take 5min, rather than less than 1min. But on the other hand, it cost me $12, and not $60. Tradeoffs... What really opened my eyes, though, is the Review that someone posted in my recent Biostar SSD thread. On one of the later pages in that review, it has a graph of file-copy speeds. And the WD 1TB Blue HDD 7200RPM, is FASTER than some of the other known-crappy SSDs! Which kind of opened my eyes. HDDs are not optimal for multi-tasking. But modern HDDs aren't really that "slow" anymore, especially with the greater RAM cache amounts on them. Sure, a GOOD SSD is faster than a GOOD HDD, but it's equally possible that a GOOD HDD can be faster than a mediocre / poor SSD, for certain things. Oh, my point. That after using it for 30 minutes with Firefox 58a1 Nightly, I really had a hard time seeing that it was that much slower than an SSD. Sure, if you're opening up a massive array of tabs when your browser opens, then an SSD will have a definite advantage. But once the browser is loaded into RAM, and with a fast internet connection (I have gigabit), unless you run out of free RAM and start thrashing the pagefile (a real and present danger to using a HDD for browsing), then things aren't that much different, browsing individual pages, between a relatively-fast HDD and an SSD.