A lot of valid points here and some I wholeheartedly agree with. But the point nowadays in every conversation about anything really is to discuss on a basis that’s realistic and… well, in that sense, yes, HDDs are still the cheapest option for the cheapest possible PC.

Question is: do Windows 10/11 perform well enough with HDDs as system drives so as to deter Microsoft from enforcing SSD-only use? Honestly, I think not. I think that not even Windows 8 worked off of an HDD in a manner that’s productive and satisfactory. On Windows 7 we used to go after the fastest, most expensive HDDs as boot drives for this very reason (remember how much a 150GB Seagate Raptor used to cost?). Disk thrashing and one-minute boot times and “multitasking” that really wasn’t were things we simply used to put up with because we had no other option.

But tech is getting better all the time. Why not reap the benefits of that advancement? For the sake of “having more choice”? That’s understandable, but the people this approach is helping nowadays are fewer than the people it’s not helping. The HDD has to go so that the “absolute baseline PC” can rise to the level of usability 2022 systems deserve.

The SSD+HDD combo you mention is the obvious solution to that. If used for Windows and some apps only, not data, even a 128GB SDD is enough if regularly cleaned and optimized (I have several PCs set up this way). But for Christ’s sake, really. HDDs just don’t cut it anymore for anything other than data storage. Microsoft is only planning to make something we all know it’s true, official. I say we let them do it. I do not agree with them often, but when they’re right, they’re right.