Get an external one instead http://www.digitalcityegypt.com/Product/wd-my-passport-2tb-usb-30/2393

This also costs several souls, but this one is great for basically backing up all the things, which as a GOG user, is a LIFE SAVER.

How Many L.E. do you get a week?

can't you import from neighbouring countries?

In 2013 The Tech Report ran an endurance test on major brand SSDs: https://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment, two years later they were finally able to kill the last survivors of their experiment: https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead.

Definitely go for SSD. It's not even close and is the single-most far-reaching upgrade you can do, far more than any CPU. As for defragging, there are multiple issues to be aware of:-

1. With mechanical HDD's 'what you see is what you get' as far as how data is presented to the OS by the drive. So if you see files near the end of the drive on a HDD, that's where they'll physically placed on a spinning platter. With an SSD, data is written completely differently. Eg, a 1TB SSD made up of say 8x 128MB NAND chips will write 1/8th of that data to each chip simultaneously. So technically, all data is "fragmented" across the memory chips like a RAID 0 "Stripe". It only "appears" like a HDD due to the Flash Translation Layer that presents multiple memory chips as one "hard drive". So how data is visible via how a defragmenter displays it isn't how it's stored internally.

2. SSD's do have write limits, but they're now typically much higher than what most users go through. Constant defragmenting reduces that much more than it gains.

3. The performance impact is far less. No spinning heads = massively faster access time (0.1ms SSD vs up to 10ms for HDD's), ie over 100x faster. This is most noticeable with accessing lots of small files (inc fragmented ones).

4. Game load time difference can be huge vs HDD's. They can reduce micro-stutter too as they'll be presenting small chunks of data to a game +100x faster. If you're going to be installing only a few games at a time, definitely put them on the SSD. If you're going to be using an SSD just for booting and install all games at once onto a mechanical HDD, then think about using a utility like Steam Mover (despite it's name it works with everything). You basically install all your games to a large cheap HDD, then it copies whatever game you're currently / most playing on your HDD to your SSD, then creates an NTFS "junction" that seamlessly redirects it to the SSD with a single click. Then click it again to move it back when you're finished. I used this when I had a small 256GB drive and it works fine for GOG games too.

5. SSD's (and RAM) are currently cheaper than ever (RAM is less than half the price of what it was just a couple of years back). Go for 16GB min RAM and the largest SSD you can afford and you'll be in a good position to ride out the next time the RAM market "spikes" back up (as it always does).

Thanks for the info and you have made it more confusing,whether Pro or Home.Why could it (Home) be a beta? Especially,if I tweak out most of the shit as I have done since XP to W7 and just had basic gaming pc's:)
Yes,the builder has Samsung but I was going to steer away from that one to an Western Digital or Kingston.
Okay,one less problem:)

They would of pushed them to their limit and that's fair enough.
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. ... And 7200 RPMs HDDs run just fine.

Anybody who has never had an SSD then gets one quickly ask themselves why they have been torturing themselves all these years. I've been running SSD's for close to 10 years now.

It sounds so weird to me to hear this still being asked.
It's like "Do you guys think I should just stick to my floppy disks, or get a hard drive", except it's 1997

They don't need to be defragmented, because it doesn't matter where the data is stored on them, it's all accessed at the same speed. With the rotating discs of hard drives, the closer to the center the data is, the slower it is read (or written), because it has to spin more often to cover a certain number of bits. Also, fragmented data has to be stitched together which means different parts of the drive have to be accessed which takes more time. With an SSD, all that doesn't matter, so defragging is completely unnecessary.

Also, it is highly unlikely that you wreck an SSD by writing too much on it. Even with the most cautious estimates for how many writing cycles each bit can take, it would take decades to reach this limit. I've bought my second SSD last year to upgrade from 120 to 500 GB, and I had written less than 20 TB over the five years I've had the old one, but in all probability it should easily last at least 5 times as long. Newer and bigger ones can last much longer.

So, yes, by all means, get one!

Point taken.
Well,by your advice a 500GB SSD just for OS and a few programs should be fine.

Not everyone can get their hands on an SSD easily. ~~or like me, I'm using a laptop and plans to build a PC are only going to show up later~~

Combination is best. OS and things you need to load quickly on an SSD. The rest on a HDD (old games, installers, movies, photos, etc.).

I personally have 2 500GB SSDs and a 1 TB HDD.

I built my mum's most recent PC, and put the OS on an SSD, knowing myself what a difference it had made to me, with mine. After I gave it to her, I asked if she had noticed how much faster it booted up and loaded various programs.

Nope. She hadn't noticed. :P

The answer, imho, is absolutely yes!
I've bought a 500Gb Samsung EVO 860 EVO M.2 2/3 years ago and for all my gaming needs is more than sufficient.

Then I switched all my PCs/laptop HDs to SSD and I'm really happy with that and I'll never go back .

Obviously I won't keep my more precious data on it (at least not only there) and I've also a NAS as archive

Strictly speaking, it does matter where things are stored on an SSD, just not in the same way as in an HDD. SSDs consist of many blocks of storage, each of a certain size, and while there aren't any issues with reading them, there is one consideration with writing one. In order to write to an area of an SSD, the entire block has to be erased first, which will then require the entire block (or at least the portion that's referenced by the file system) to be re-written. For example, if a file is fragmented, with bits and pieces of it on different blocks, re-writing the file will require erasing every single block of the file, which in turn requires writing all that date elsewhere.

So, ther4e is some sense in which defragmenting an SSD might make sense, though an algorithm intended for HDDs is not going to give good results here.