Okay,thanks but not really a backup person excepting games.

I can sympathise. Such boring maintenance tasks shouldn't be necessary but they increasingly are becoming so.

SSDs are significantly faster than conventional hard drives in both read and write access. The actual real-world difference in performance is going to depend on the workload. If you're doing casual word processing, web browsing, email, music/video and playing older games, then you may not going to notice much difference (outside of the initial OS load time). But if you're playing games which are loading lots of very high resolution textures and/or running applications which are frequently accessing the disk for data, then an SSD will provide a significant boost in performance.

The most cost-effective setup is a hybrid drive solution. Use at least a 256GB SSD to hold the operating system, applications and any high-performance games. Then have a 1TB+ conventional hard disk for all your documents, pictures, movies and other data, along with any older games which may not benefit from the higher disk access speeds.

Defragging isn't really necessary on an SSD since the direct access speed is so fast. SSDs are essentially like RAM. Remember back in the 90's and early 2000's, when fly-by-night companies were pitching "RAM defrag utilities"? And do you remember how utterly worthless those things were? SSDs are pretty much in the same category. The memory access is so low to begin with, that trying to move things around and "optimize" the files just results in wasting time and effort.

And when you say "Win 10 is worrying me"... I've been using an SSD under Windows 7, and the difference was immediately noticeable. You don't need to be using Win10 for SSD support. Even under Win7 or Win8.1, you'll still see a very solid performance improvement across the board.

One final point to note: early on, people used to claim that SSDs had significantly lower life-cycles than conventional hard disks. While that is technically true... after many years of having a large number of people employing SSDs for daily use, it's been discovered that the average life-expectancy of an SSD is actually several times longer than initially expected. While a conventional hard disk may last 30+ years, good quality SSDs are showing that they should be able to easily last 15 to 20 years or more. And newer models should last even longer. So, the "life expectancy" argument around SSDs has largely been proven to be a moot point, unless you're looking to build some ultra-durable system that will last many decades using the same disk.

Prices are good now but are still lowering. Waiting a few weeks / months and the prices should be ideal.

nup

Rmember that the SSD reads and writes all over the drive at equal speeds. So defrag not only hurts an SSD, but isn't useful.

From what I've read, SSD are better in every way than HDD except for price, I personally would of already got an SSD but sadly all the drive slots in my case are full.

There is really no reason not to get an SSD at this point, just looking at the prices. Of course, it depends on the computer:
* Low end: You can find SSDs for cheaper than a hard drive; Google finds some that cost around $20. HDDs around the price, if you can find any, aren't much bigger. These daye, even a $100 dollar computer uses solid state storage, though it might not be the fastest. (The Raspberry Pi uses microSD cards (full size SD for the earliest ones), which are a form of solid state storage, albeit not a very good one.)
* Mid-high end: I find a 1TB SSD for less than $100. 1TB of storage is likely enough for most users; if you want a well known brand, it isn't too much more expensive (I find a Seagate for around $130). At this capacity, there is a signifcant price difference between HDD and SSD, but the single SSD build could be quite competitive with price wise with the small SSD + large HDD build at this point. If cheap SSDs aren't fast enough for you, you can try to find one that uses SLC flash, which is even better (but considerably more expensive).

In any case, from a casual user standpoint (assuming no heavy use of RAM, high storage needs, or high CPU or GPU demands), the single most noticeable upgrade you could do is replacing the HDD with an SSD.

These days, I'm thinking that if you only occasionally need large storage, you can save energy by using only an internal SSD and attaching an external HDD when you need to use the extra storage.
Even then, the price issue isn't as big as it used to be, and at the low end (like 120GB or smaller) is practically non-existent (you can't even find new hard drives at such small capacities).

SSD for C:\drive Regular HDD for games! Win 10 Pro is better then what you've got now I run win 10 Pro and it's fine, NO DON'T GET HOME, Windows 10 home is SHIT

Here GET PRO: Pro has more security and isn't as fiddly as win 10 home AND as you are installing you can turn everything off BEFORE you install it without having to do it later.

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2018/12/why-you-never-want-windows-10-home/

The lifespan and speed loss of a SSD is dependent on how much storage it provides. Bigger is better, slowing down the rate at which the SSD degrades. However, there are two types of SSD to keep an eye out for: TLC and QLC. The latter provides greater capacity, but at the expense of lifespan and speed. Until QLC had time to mature, it is unreliable at the moment.

You will definitely want a TLC drive for your OS at the very least.

On most new pc's today the only option is Win10,would love to stay with Win7 but it is soon to be killed.Builder only advertises Win10 but I could ask for Win8.1. but how long before that is killed also,so win 10 is really the only alternative outside of Linux and that doesn't really cater for all games.
Builder will install,but I thought a home version would have less shit on it. The extra stuff on Pro would never be used by me.As for security a good virus protector will suffice,I think:)

https://www.micron.com/products/advanced-solutions/qlc-nand

Win 10 Home makes you MS's beta tester even more (not that using Pro doesn't, but those are really the cannon fodder, with even less control on all that shit running whenever it wants).
And since you asked when 8.1 will be killed, Jan 2023, but you'll likely need to trick it if running on a recent generation CPU.

About SSDs, the write cycles shouldn't be that much of a problem with any current good one. For example my 250 Gb Samsung 860 EVO says 150 TB. That'd mean a bit over 41 GB written every day for 10 years. The 500 Gb one has 300 Tb, so over 82 GB / day for 10 years. You may not want to use it to record HD video constantly perhaps, but other than that...
The issue is with data recovery and failure warning. Quite easy to recover something accidentally (or not) deleted off a HDD if you realize it right away (or even later on a non-system partition), not so much on a SSD. And a chkdsk /f /v /r will likely let you know of a HDD's issues in ways that may be harder to notice so easily on a SSD. Also, when SSDs fail, they tend to fail for good, while a HDD tends to have first some bad sectors, data may be recovered even from there, give you warning that it's all going to go belly up and let you save at least most things first...

But little point in a SSD for plain data though, at least in my view, so would go for SSD for OS and games (possibly just more demanding games if you want to split) and still HDD for other stuff, thinking of both price and risk of complete data loss. Though, of course, if you are in the least concerned about the latter, backups are a must. Learned that the hard way over a decade ago and have only improved my backup routine since. Currently there are things I have in as many as 5 places (2 external, albeit one updated monthly and the other only when I'm particularly worried something might go belly up - a script makes 2 local backups of the important stuff daily), and everything bar the installed games in at least 2 (and that exception is just for the game files, I mean, saves are in the "stuff I can't just get again" category and therefore in 4-5 places).

No, I would not SSD. All SSDs have a fatal flaw called "write endurance" which is 100% guaranteed to cause them to fail once a certain amount of data has been written to them.

In contrast, HDDs do not have the horrible fatal flaw in them at all.

That is not to say that HDDs last forever. They don't. All hardware fails eventually.

But it's still much better to have your data stored on a medium that isn't guaranteed to fail due to the fatal flaw of write endurance.

Of course, the fake news media almost never talk about the write endurance flaw of SSDs, so many consumers don't even know about that.

And 7200 RPMs HDDs run just fine. They don't cause massive slowdowns, contrary to what popular belief has become in the last 5 years or so due to the huge universal push in favor of the untrue idea that crappy SSD hardware is much better than HDD hardware.