No one, that makes their way here, can claim to be a computer neophyte. Period. If they have done any computer work previously, they will have learned the major rule. Save and save often. That NPP has an additional edge of protection, should not make them abandon their common sense computer behavior that should have been ingrained in them before they got here.
Because it’s suddenly fashionable to jump off a cliff, does that mean everyone should go jump off a cliff? Certainly not
(…)
the prudent way to mitigate data loss, is to purposely save the document, originally and often.

Once again, we agree on these points. However, they aren’t as relevant to the points we are making as you seem to think:

I have already acknowledged that most NP++ likely discover the Session feature by accident, but perhaps I wasn’t clear about linking this discovery to the independent usage that I also mentioned. Personally, I discovered this feature as I was using NP++ on my own, and I’m guessing that this is true for most of the other users who make use of this feature as well. So, your “fashionable to jump off a cliff” argument isn’t likely relevant here (at least not for the majority of users).

Either way, users who do make use of it learn that it is (surprisingly?) reliable - content is preserved in the vast majority of use cases. However, despite this high degree of reliability, I don’t think users are relying on it for important data, regardless of how they discovered it in the first place. Personally, I simply use it for things like scrap notes - content that isn’t important enough to warrant a new file in any of the various directories that I work out of, but important enough to be (potentially) useful again in the future, yet would not be significantly missed if lost.

Obviously, I can’t speak for other users, but I’d imagine that they use this feature for the same sort of thing. Either way, I certainly agree that anyone who relies on it for more important content is doing so unwisely. In fact, this principle would still apply if the feature were to be reinforced: the goal of the proposed reinforcement is not, as you seem to fear (and rightfully so), to make users comfortable with expanding the importance of the content within their preserved files, it is simply to mitigate inconveniences. So, it’s not crucial to reinforce any limitations that this feature might have, but it is undeniably preferable.

The training we are referring to is coming from standard usage of NP++: users are observing that, if they don’t explicitly close an unsaved file before closing NP++ itself, the content will be restored the next time NP++ is opened in the vast majority of situations (including system restarts and updates, and even NP++ updates). As you alluded to, this inadvertently lulls some users into a false sense of security; that’s the “training” we are referring to. Are these users a bit short-sighted for thinking this way? Perhaps. However, given how often it does work, it’s not difficult to understand why so many users over-estimate the effectiveness of this feature.

It does address it. No one, that makes their way here, can claim to be a computer neophyte. Period. If they have done any computer work previously, they will have learned the major rule. Save and save often. That NPP has an additional edge of protection, should not make them abandon their common sense computer behavior that should have been ingrained in them before they got here. This is my point.

Because it’s suddenly fashionable to jump off a cliff, does that mean everyone should go jump off a cliff? Certainly not, so pardon me, if I don’t allow wiggle room to avoid the common sense solution, to the problem. Let them lose their data, until they get smart enough, not to. Can’t say it any more plainly. I don’t believe we should allow their assumptions (ass out of you and me) to rule the development direction, nor our concern over their bad habits. Callous, perhaps, but that is my experience to make certain that they get to learn the importance of the good habits, versus the bad.

@mathlete2 said in Unsaved Files Recovery Script:

There is certainly some merit to this suggestion, but the developers would have to be careful with the implementation - you wouldn’t want users losing data when they update their NP++ installation. Even if the default is safely changed, that wouldn’t change the fact that the feature has room for improvement; if there’s a sensible way to mitigate data loss, isn’t it prudent to follow through on it?

My experience so far, is that past installations, do not change with updates, so that isn’t the issue. It’s the new installations, however, that don’t have the defaults set, which means they need to set things the way they’ll want them from that point, rather than get default actions that will teach them bad habits. Up to them to set the settings to do what they want, and now we get to the point that if they don’t know, they need to read.

And I’ll repeat, that the sticking point that you, I and @Private-Confidential don’t seem to agree on, is that the prudent way to mitigate data loss, is to purposely save the document, originally and often. That is the part that their and your point in this discussion keeps discounting. The personal responsibility aspect. If this was my program that I’m developing and someone came to me with that argument, I’d advise them to find something else that fits their needs, as this program is obviously too advanced for their abilities…and move on.

To state it plainly, no one trained those users to trust Notepad++ to do any such thing.

We agree on that, but that’s not the point that @Private-Confidential and I are making; you don’t need someone to explicitly teach you something to be trained to do something.

The training we are referring to is coming from standard usage of NP++: users are observing that, if they don’t explicitly close an unsaved file before closing NP++ itself, the content will be restored the next time NP++ is opened in the vast majority of situations (including system restarts and updates, and even NP++ updates). As you alluded to, this inadvertently lulls some users into a false sense of security; that’s the “training” we are referring to. Are these users a bit short-sighted for thinking this way? Perhaps. However, given how often it does work, it’s not difficult to understand why so many users over-estimate the effectiveness of this feature.

@Lycan-Thrope said in Unsaved Files Recovery Script:

I think @Alan-Kilborn has a good point, to make the Session Backup not a default setting so people aren’t mistakenly trained

There is certainly some merit to this suggestion, but the developers would have to be careful with the implementation - you wouldn’t want users losing data when they update their NP++ installation. Even if the default is safely changed, that wouldn’t change the fact that the feature has room for improvement; if there’s a sensible way to mitigate data loss, isn’t it prudent to follow through on it?

They assumed, it would do it…and in perpetuity. That is immature and irresponsible behavior for someone to then need saving from themselves when any training ever given, or written for using programs always starts with the mantra to save one’s work. I was trying to be diplomatic about it using his own words, but your dissection has left me needing to state in plain language. The longer this discussion goes on, the more I think @Alan-Kilborn has a good point, to make the Session Backup not a default setting so people aren’t mistakenly trained ( and assumes) the behavior is perpetually going to save them from themselves.

I completely understand what he meant, and my response is still valid

That first part does not appear to be true: @Private-Confidential 's original comment began with “Users have been trained to trust that Notepad++ will restore their unsaved work”, and you responded with “They haven’t been trained”. The original comment was referring to the informal “training” that occurs as a result of observant usage of NP++ (and reading the online documentation). Such usage and reading teaches you that, in most cases, the default settings of NP++ will preserve the content within unsaved files.

This “training”, while admittedly incomplete with respect to the overall functionality of the feature at hand, has undeniably occurred. Had you responded with something like “they haven’t been fully trained”, your claim would have been valid. However, as it stands, you either referred to a different type of training than what was originally implied, or incorrectly dismissed the training that has occurred.

It’s also worth pointing out that this “training” provides users with correct information about how NP++ is designed to work (at least in most situations), and does not contradict the additional information you have provided. Specifically: your point that the session snapshot feature is not designed to function as a backup (which is valid) does not change the fact that users can reasonably expect their sessions to be restored in most situations, nor does it imply that improvements to this feature (or the implementation of additional features to support it) are unreasonable/unnecessary/useless/etc.

The same can be said of your clarification that “No one trained those users, but themselves”: this is a true statement, but it doesn’t go against any of the points that @Private-Confidential is making. If anything, this observation highlights the point that they were trying to make with the original “training” comment: there is no formal training available for NP++ users, so their initial understanding will almost always be based on things like trial-and-error. Even users who go a step further and read the documentation won’t necessarily learn some of the key subtleties that you are pointing out; these subtleties are certainly consistent with the documentation, but they are not implied by the documentation - that in itself is a key subtlety that’s worth noting.

TLDR: the main point that I was trying to make was that you are both raising valid points that do not necessarily contradict one another. At the very least, your ideas are not as incompatible with @Private-Confidential 's as you seem to think.

So whether by accident or circumstance an unintended benefit of a feature, justifies someone ignoring the overriding mantra to save data/files.

This should have been:
So whether by accident or circumstance, an unintended benefit of a feature, does not justify someone ignoring the overriding mantra to save data/files.

FWIW, I think you’ve misunderstood what @Private-Confidential meant by “trained” in this context:

By enabling the unsaved files feature by default, many (most?) NP++ users have learned to expect unsaved work to be restored when NP++ is reopened, even when things like system restarts and software updates occur between NP++ sessions.

No @mathlete2 , I completely understand what he meant, and my response is still valid. No one trained those users, but themselves. The very nature, name and purpose of Session does not mislead anyone with any familiarity with the English language.

The Session is a snapshot of the desktop before closing, it is not a backup option. If all files are properly saved, and a user closes and then reopens the program, their Session is exactly like they left it. Line and column locations of files, files that were open…etc. The ability of a document that is unsaved being retained in that Session snapshot is not it’s purpose, and no amount of logic by people that make themselves dependent on that as a feature can be justified in the overall continued reminder by all software (even NPP) to save your files/data before closing, changing, updating or reinstalling…etc. It is the stable traning mantra, if ever there were any training in this regard, to save data. So whether by accident or circumstance an unintended benefit of a feature, justifies someone ignoring the overriding mantra to save data/files. It is not a program’s job, as I’ve said, to save a user from themselves. It is the purview of deities. :-)

They haven’t been trained, or else they would know that you need to backup unsaved work by saving it.

FWIW, I think you’ve misunderstood what @Private-Confidential meant by “trained” in this context:

By enabling the unsaved files feature by default, many (most?) NP++ users have learned to expect unsaved work to be restored when NP++ is reopened, even when things like system restarts and software updates occur between NP++ sessions.

Admittedly, many (most?) users were likely surprised by this dynamic because it goes against the logic of just about every other file-based software program ever created. In fact, one could even argue that many (most?) users discovered this dynamic accidentally because they weren’t expecting it at first. Either way, it’s a default feature that many (most?) NP++ users are at least aware of by now, whether they consciously make use of it or not. Furthermore, the fact that it’s an intentionally-designed feature makes it reasonable to accept the functionality as an expectation, even if it technically isn’t wise to rely on this expectation.

That said, it’s also reasonable to accept that any issues with (or breakdowns in) this functionality are deficiencies that are at least worthy of investigation, even if the investigations aren’t a high priority. Obviously, if it is established that these deficiencies could be addressed somehow, the question of whether or not they should be addressed depends on a number of factors, including how many users actually want the issue addressed, the complexity of the resolution (for both end users and developers), etc.

The enterprise issue is particularly challenging because people get randomly assigned virtual desktop sessions every they sign in. We can’t 100% depend on the contents of APPDATA, LOCALAPPDATA, or ProgramData being there tomorrow.

Thus, while your script is laudable it likely will not work in many “my files are gone!” situations as the script makes the assumption that the currently installed copy of Notepad++ exactly matches how Notepad++ was installed and configured yesterday or some vague time ago.

1️⃣ This isn’t about laziness—it’s about expectations.

Users have been trained to trust that Notepad++ will restore their unsaved work, because that’s how the feature has always behaved. When an update wipes that work out without warning, it’s not just a bad habit issue—it’s a design failure. If a feature creates an expectation, the developers should either ensure it works reliably or warn users explicitly when it might fail.

I understand your points, but I fear you do not understand mine. This first statement of yours, is where the logic of your entire premise fails.

They haven’t been trained, or else they would know that you need to backup unsaved work by saving it. This feature was never meant to be used in perpetuity for an unsaved document to be safe. That is the reality, and the weakness in your premise.

Also where your premise dies, is in the ..If a feature creates an expectation... because the feature never created that expectation. The user not saving their work and they themselves depending on it, created that expectation. If I use a hammer to remove screws, they don’t come out. You can not demand a tool not designed for one job to work for another. The premise is ludicrous, and that’s what I’m getting at. If the user is not qualified to use the tool right, then the safest thing to do, is to take that tool away from that user, until they learn why the tool exists and how to use it properly.

That’s why I pointed out that, your argument will have to evolve off of the prevent people from being lazy, forgetful (which the feature acutally helps) or complacent. It’s where the reason for your solution, or this discussion or need for the developers to get involved, loses any credibility. It is, in current parlance, a nanny-state solution to a problem that doesn’t truly exist. Rather it is created by a negligent behavior problem. You do not reward negligent behavior, to correct it. You allow the practicing negligent to continue until they get it.

Anyway, I believe you’ve been directed to the proper area for this discussion to continue to be entertained on github, in the development ecosystem where you can make your complaint, suggestions, and discussions flow…because as @PeterJones points out, this is not the place to argue your case for action. It’s a nice place for discussion, but hardly the place for actionable results. Good luck in your quest.

Thank you for pointing me toward the FAQ. I’ll take a look at that to better understand how decision-making around Notepad++ development actually works.

That said, I do appreciate that some of you have contributed to the codebase, and I’d like to move the discussion in a more constructive direction. My intent was never to debate the merits of personal backup habits—though that discussion seems to have taken on a life of its own. Instead, my goal has been to explore what’s technically feasible in addressing a recurring user issue: unexpected data loss due to reliance on session persistence.

I now understand that Don is the sole decision-maker and doesn’t actively engage in discussions like these. Given that, I’d like to ask those of you who do have experience with the Notepad++ codebase:

• If this issue were to be addressed at the development level, what would be the biggest technical challenges in implementing a safeguard?
• Are there existing constraints within the codebase that make solutions like a pre-update warning, automatic session validation, or improved backup handling impractical?
• Have there been previous discussions or proposals around this, and if so, what were the outcomes?

If the answer is that it’s just not a priority, that’s fine—I just want to understand the technical reasoning rather than continuing in circles about user habits. If there’s a more appropriate channel where technical feasibility is discussed (GitHub issues, a dev mailing list, etc.), I’d be happy to take the conversation there instead.

Ultimately, I’d rather focus on what can be done rather than rehashing why it shouldn’t be done. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to engage in a more technical discussion.

Addressing the Underestimation of Notepad++ Users

Alan, I find your response both amusing and concerning. You stated:

“You over-estimate the abilities of the Notepad++ user that might be interested.”

Let’s break that down for a moment.

1. A Curious Contradiction

Notepad++ is a widely used text editor, heavily favored by developers, sysadmins, and power users. In fact, it’s often the go-to tool for those who appreciate lightweight, high-performance alternatives to bloated IDEs. To suggest that its users lack the ability to adapt a well-documented, step-by-step platform-agnostic script contradicts the very nature of the Notepad++ community.

Are you implying that the same users who actively tweak config files, write macros, manage plugins, and even engage in scripting automation cannot follow basic adaptation instructions? That seems like a gross underestimation of the audience.

2. The Irony of Your Argument

Your response essentially implies that:

• Notepad++ users aren’t capable of following simple platform-specific instructions.
• Because of that, I shouldn’t have bothered providing a solution that requires even mild technical competency.

Yet, in the same breath, you advocate for completely removing session persistence, which would force these same users to manually manage their file-saving process—a process that, as you argue, they should already know how to do. Do you see the inconsistency?

3. A Practical Perspective

A well-documented script is not inherently complicated. Here’s why:

• I have provided explicit instructions for adapting the script for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
• The necessary modifications involve changing a few file paths and substituting basic commands.
• For those who prefer a plug-and-play solution, porting to Python and packaging it as an executable is straightforward.

Your assumption that Notepad++ users are incapable of adapting a recovery script suggests an unfortunate lack of faith in the community. It also ignores the reality that a vast number of Notepad++ users have the capability (or willingness) to follow clear instructions, especially when it helps prevent data loss.

4. Let’s Keep the Conversation Constructive

I’m not here to engage in a battle of opinions without substance. I am, however, open to genuine discussions regarding feasibility, implementation, and practical improvements to both Notepad++ and this script.

If you have constructive feedback on how to improve the approach—or, better yet, an alternative solution that doesn’t amount to removing a core feature and calling it a day—I’d love to hear it.

Otherwise, dismissing the effort entirely based on an unfounded underestimation of Notepad++ users serves no purpose other than gatekeeping technical solutions.

5. Final Thought

I’d argue that the true underestimation here is not of Notepad++ users’ capabilities, but rather the willingness to recognize and address a real problem with viable solutions.

I look forward to your response.

🔹

First off, I appreciate the time and effort you took to respond. I’m not here to engage in an argument, and I want to make it clear that I respect your perspective. However, I feel like there’s a fundamental disconnect in this discussion that I’d like to address.

I understand and agree with a lot of what you said about personal responsibility and forming good habits. You’re right—discipline, structure, and accountability are key factors in both professional and personal success. But I think the core issue here isn’t about personal habits, it’s about software design and user experience.

Let me explain why I think your response is missing the mark:

1️⃣ This isn’t about laziness—it’s about expectations.

Users have been trained to trust that Notepad++ will restore their unsaved work, because that’s how the feature has always behaved. When an update wipes that work out without warning, it’s not just a bad habit issue—it’s a design failure. If a feature creates an expectation, the developers should either ensure it works reliably or warn users explicitly when it might fail.

2️⃣ Not everyone uses software the same way.

I get that you’ve built habits that work for you. That’s great! But not everyone has the same workflow, use case, or cognitive processing style. Some users—myself included—rely on session persistence for reasons beyond convenience. That doesn’t make them reckless or foolish. It means they have a different way of working, and software should accommodate that when possible.

3️⃣ Blaming users doesn’t solve the problem.

I keep seeing variations of the same argument: “Users should just save their files properly.” I don’t disagree that saving regularly is a good practice. But the fact that so many people continue to lose their work suggests that Notepad++ isn’t meeting user expectations in a reliable way. Telling users it’s “their own fault” doesn’t help them recover lost work, nor does it improve the software.

4️⃣ There are practical ways to fix this.

Instead of debating philosophy, let’s talk solutions. A simple pre-update warning for unsaved sessions? A dedicated recovery mechanism? A more intuitive preferences UI that explains session management better? These are all things that could reduce frustration without removing useful features.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and I respect your viewpoint. But I hope we can shift this conversation away from user-blaming and toward actual solutions. Because at the end of the day, the goal is to make Notepad++ better and more reliable for everyone—not just those who already have strong backup habits.

“I have a quick question, are any of you NPP decision-makers or developers? I ask this because I’m not familiar with the code and I would be interested in a more technical discussion regarding feasibility of what we are discussing.”

This wasn’t rhetorical

We’ve got an entire FAQ entry on that. Go check out the first entry in our FAQ section.

Specifically, regarding

If anyone here has actual insights into Notepad++’s codebase or development, I’d really like to hear about what is technically feasible.

There are those here who do have insights into the codebase, as some of the regulars have contributed codebase improvements. But no one here is a decision-maker for the codebase: Don is the one and only absolute decision maker, and he only comes to the Forum for announcements and the like, he does not read discussions like this one.

I ended my last post with a very straightforward question:

“I have a quick question, are any of you NPP decision-makers or developers? I ask this because I’m not familiar with the code and I would be interested in a more technical discussion regarding feasibility of what we are discussing.”

This wasn’t rhetorical—I genuinely want to engage in a technical discussion about how we could implement safeguards without removing session persistence entirely.

What continues to baffle me is that so much of this conversation has focused on criticism and personal philosophies about saving files rather than actual solutions. The most commonly proposed “fix” seems to be removing session persistence altogether, which—let’s be honest—feels like the easiest way to avoid the problem rather than solving it.

Let’s take a step back:

Users are consistently reporting data loss. That’s an undeniable fact.
Instead of solving the problem, the response has been to dismiss these users as careless, lazy, or inexperienced.
Eliminating persistence altogether punishes users who rely on it. That’s a bandaid, not a solution.

I’d love to move this discussion forward into something constructive. If Notepad++’s current implementation of session persistence has flaws, let’s talk about ways to improve it rather than scrapping it entirely.

For example:

Could there be a built-in session recovery mechanism like many modern editors have?
Could there be clearer warnings during updates if unsaved sessions exist?
Could we implement a toggleable “safe mode” that reminds users to save periodically without disrupting workflow?

If anyone here has actual insights into Notepad++’s codebase or development, I’d really like to hear about what is technically feasible.

Let’s solve the problem—not just argue about it.

you would have seen that I’ve provided a detailed breakdown of how to adapt the script for Windows, Mac,

You over-estimate the abilities of the Notepad++ user that might be interested.

If you had taken the time to review the README file, you would have seen that I’ve provided a detailed breakdown of how to adapt the script for Windows, Mac, and Linux environments. To recap:

Platform-Specific Adjustments
    The script already accounts for differences in file paths and shell environments (Bash for Linux/Mac, PowerShell/Batch for Windows).
    It includes conditional logic (if [[ "$(uname)" == "Darwin" ]]; then … elif [[ "$OS" == "Windows_NT" ]]; then …) to ensure cross-platform compatibility.

Windows Adaptation
    Paths like /tmp and /var/tmp are correctly mapped to Windows equivalents (%TEMP%, %LOCALAPPDATA%).
    The script suggests using PowerShell (Get-ChildItem) or a Python-based solution for maximum compatibility.

Mac Adaptation
    Since Notepad++ is not native to Mac, it outlines how to identify the correct Wine paths for users running it under Wine.

Packaging Considerations
    Linux/Mac users can run the script natively in Bash.
    Windows users can either convert it to PowerShell/Batch or package it as a Python script using PyInstaller.

So, how is this script platform-specific? If anything, it is designed to be as cross-platform as possible, with clear instructions for adapting it to different operating systems.

Your statement dismisses the script outright without addressing its actual content. If there are specific technical concerns about the cross-platform implementation, I’m happy to discuss them. But vague assertions about its “dubious use” don’t contribute to a productive discussion.

I’m here to solve a problem, and I encourage anyone responding to engage with the actual solutions presented rather than making baseless claims. Let’s focus on improving Notepad++’s data integrity for all users, rather than shutting down efforts that aim to help.

For users like myself, who have fast-moving thought processes and often need to jot down ideas quickly, session persistence is invaluable. I have ADD, and if I don’t write something down immediately, it’s gone. This feature has allowed me to function more effectively in both my personal and professional life. I suspect that many others, whether neurodivergent or simply accustomed to this workflow, feel the same way.

This is in no way meant to insult you.
Unfortunately for you, I too, am ADHD, and have learned to deal with and work with that gift all my life. It’s not a handicap, a crutch or an excuse, it is a superhero power. However, like all skills, talents and ‘superpowers’ it must be trained, honed and disciplined to be used for good, rather than bad purposes. My wife tells me I am also OCD (I am) as well, to which I quip, you make that sound like it’s a bad thing?

My point in this, is that there are ‘habits’ that one forms, consciously, that allows one to overcome what can be deficits, and make them strengths. I’ve described one of them to you already, and that is obsessive back up of files. When I don’t and I lose data…guess who I blame? ME!!

My counter argument to you, is that the premise for your suggestion and solution, is dependent on the focus and importance you place on the reason that it needs to be addressed. ‘Normal’ (ungifted) people, don’t have that problem. They don’t lose their train of thought, or can stay on it. We can’t. Therefore, the solution to problems we encounter, are contingent upon us to go that extra mile for our own defense.

I had a gym teacher in high school, who had the same problem, and you know what his advice to me was? “We have to work harder, just to stay normal”. Words I’ve lived by since then, and also from my mother who had the same issue, and taught me to ‘focus’.

This feature, is not supposed to be a crutch, it is a temporary safety, for just the situation you mention; the capture the thought before it gets away, need. Your assertion is that the feature entraps the user to learn bad habits, and I challenge that premise, that it is up to the user to maintain solid habits, so they don’t become a victim to complacency. That is everyone’s challenge, normies and ‘neurodivergent’.

For me, your argument will have to evolve off of the prevent people from being lazy, forgetful (which the feature acutally helps) or complacent. If they have that much data in the wild without saving it, it is their own fault, and I don’t think you’re going to be able to discuss or frame it in any other light.

What the developer may decide to do, is one thing. If you want to take a crack at the code, the open-source code is available to make what you want to happen, and submit it to the developer for review and consideration. Your script, may work for others that want that “saving grace” option, and now are welcome to use it, which is why I thanked you for your contribution to give them another tool/crutch, (depending on your perspective) so they can overcome their erroneous understanding of the purpose and use of the Session feature. Other users, who have discussed with you here, that they don’t find it even necessary, let alone the blame for data loss should give you some pause. Most people that are programmers/computer geeks that I know, all have the same ADHD/ADD tendency that they have learned to harness, yourself included, apparently.

For the people that just use it as a Notepad replacement, it already meets their needs. For those that need more, it’s incumbent on them to learn more. Like myself. Until I needed to learn how the UDL system works, so I could create my own UDL Package for my programming language, I was blissfully ignorant and happily content to use it as a text editor with some extra abilities, totally oblivious to the Session feature, because as someone who understand basic computer usage, and knows data loss happens, I saved whatever I needed to save. Period.

I’ve known Notepad++ for about 12 years now and, since the first time that the Session snapshot and periodic backup feature was implemented, in release 6.6, I always uncheck this terrible option !

I do want to save all my files correctly and decide, where and when it’s time to back-up ( I generally do two back-up : one a simple USB key and an other on an external Hard-Disk drive )

Each time I get a new portable version of N++, the very first thing that I do is :

• Go to the Settings > Preferences... > Backup > Session snapshot and periodic backup panel

• Uncheck the default Session snapshot and periodic backup option

• Close and restart N++ to be sure that this option is disabled

• Then, I can safely discover all the goodies of the latest release !

Believe me : I’ve never had any trouble of lost files, even when not related to N++ itself !

Remember : three things are certain in this world : Birth, Death and Data Loss. You control the last !!

Best Regards,

guy038

I believe it’s worth considering why this feature exists in the first place

IMO it exists because 20+ years ago the author of Notepad++ thought that it was a reasonable, and even good, feature.

and why so many users rely on it.

IMO, they get used to it because it is the default behavior.
And also, for some bizarre reason, they have no reason to have a “real file” from their data, and they enjoy looking at “new 1”, “new 4”, “new 27” tab titles (because probably many don’t know that you can rename a tab without truly saving it – another dubious “feature”).

And, it works fine for many users – but these users are “unsuspecting”.
They are not informed about other users losing data with it, UNTIL it happens to them and then they come here and post about it – but by then it may be “too late”.

My advice:
Do not use this feature. This makes all the “talk” and the “recovery script” (which is of dubious use anyway, due to “Platform-Specific Packaging”) unnecessary.
As needed, create a new tab, and immediately save it into the file system (and then proceed to “care” for this file from there, i.e., backing up).

Response to Discussion on Notepad++ Session Persistence and Data Loss

First, I appreciate the discussion and the different perspectives being shared. I understand that some users, particularly those who have always been diligent about manually saving their work, might view the session feature as an unnecessary crutch. However, I believe it’s worth considering why this feature exists in the first place and why so many users rely on it.

The Case for Keeping Session Persistence

Notepad++ has been around for over two decades, and during that time, session persistence has become an integral feature that many users—myself included—have come to depend on. It’s not about laziness or carelessness; it’s about workflow efficiency and user experience.

For users like myself, who have fast-moving thought processes and often need to jot down ideas quickly, session persistence is invaluable. I have ADD, and if I don’t write something down immediately, it’s gone. This feature has allowed me to function more effectively in both my personal and professional life. I suspect that many others, whether neurodivergent or simply accustomed to this workflow, feel the same way.

We should also ask ourselves: If so many users are reporting data loss, is the problem with them—or with the design of the software? Over time, habits are formed. If users have been relying on session persistence for years, expecting it to work seamlessly, then sudden data loss due to an update isn’t just a “user error” issue—it’s a product design issue.

Observations on Preferences and Backup Options

The Backup Preferences Module:

• There is no clear explanation of how session persistence interacts with updates.
• There is no hover help or clear UI guidance to indicate the risks associated with unchecked settings.
• There is no option for ensuring persistence across updates.

The General Preferences Module:

• It’s cluttered and overwhelming.
• The session settings don’t clearly communicate their importance or impact.

While some argue that removing session persistence entirely would prevent users from relying on it, I’d counter that a more balanced approach would be improving how the feature is managed and communicated to users.

The Real Problem: Communication & User Expectation

If an update risks wiping out unsaved session data, the least path of resistance to solving the issue is not removing the feature, but rather:

• Providing a warning before an update if unsaved session files exist.
• Ensuring the update process does not clear session data unless explicitly approved by the user.
• Improving the UI to make session persistence and backup settings clearer and more accessible.

It’s easy to say, “Just save your work.” But the reality is that Notepad++ has conditioned users to expect their unsaved work to persist. To now turn around and blame them for losing data when the feature fails is unfair.

A Thought Experiment: Why Was This Feature Implemented in the First Place?

From a forensic investigation stand point, this feature is priceless. It provides a traceable session history that can be invaluable in certain situations. If the developers originally implemented it to enhance user experience, why is the conversation now shifting toward removing it? Instead of eliminating a useful feature, we should be asking: How do we improve it to prevent unintended data loss?

Final Thoughts

I recognize that long-time users who manually save their work may not see the issue the same way as those who rely on session persistence. However, the sheer number of users reporting lost work suggests that this is a significant problem, not just a case of “user negligence.”

Rather than taking a “You can’t fix stupid” approach, let’s acknowledge that:

1. The feature exists for a reason.
2. Many users rely on it—sometimes out of necessity, not carelessness.
3. The problem isn’t the feature itself but the way it is managed and communicated.
4. The best solution isn’t removing the feature but improving its reliability and user awareness.

I appreciate the discussion and welcome further thoughts on how Notepad++ can better serve all of its users—without unnecessary frustration or preventable data loss.

I have a quick question, are any of you NPP decision makers or developers? I ask this because I’m not familiar with code and I would be interested in a more technical discussion regarding feasibility of what we are discussing.

just remove the Session capability, period

@Coises said:

I agree with you

Specifically, the talk is about removing this checkbox (checkmarked by default!) and the behavior it enables:

Removal of the behavior would force users to save (to file in the file system) or discard all untitled (e.g. “new 1”, “new 4” , etc., or renamed-but-not-user-saved) tabs in existence when Notepad++ is being exited.

In roughly a decade (has it been that long?) of using Notepad++, I’ve never operated with that checkbox checkmarked. But I agree 100% that it should go away. Why? So I can stop reading postings here about people losing data because of it.

And yes, this is just more cloud-shouting. It will never go away, and data loss because of it will probably also never go away.

Well, there is one possible solution for this, and I guarantee it won’t be popular, and that is to just remove the Session capability period. Then, no one will be under any false sense of security with regards to their documents.

I agree with you, but I’m also certain we are old folks yelling at clouds.

[The remaining 3500 characters of this post have been redacted as they are just an old man yelling at clouds.]

I can appreciate your arguments, but as someone that used to be remote staff for AOL that helped people get on the internet, and tried to teach them netiquette and to not think everything posted on it was accurate, I have since lost my belief that people that can not use a commandline, are smart. Cynical, maybe, but I’m from the school of thought that the best teacher in life, is experience, and if that experience is unpleasant, that lesson is more ingrained. The ‘Save’ button is the only foolproof back up mechanism one needs.

I have issues with Android apps that didn’t specifically allow me to ‘Save’ my documents, for this very reason, that I learn first where it saves it, and that I can save it. I don’t believe people should rely on technical solutions to their work life, as things that are digital are prone to failure, period. If that lesson of losing one’s work makes an indelible impression on them to always save their work, then so be it. It is not a design deficiency of this program, nor a lapse of developer concern, in my opinion, to not allow one to escape ‘common sense’ security measures to insure their work. If anything, I consider the Session aspect a grace period one can take advantage of when they are ‘in the zone’, but it is no more than that, to me. Anyone thinking it is more, is in for disappointment. This is regardless whether you and I are old hands at technology, or not. These are lessons we learned the hard way, regrettfully, but they were learned and impressioned upon us. I expect the next generation to be no less learned, if they expect to protect themselves, rather than being dependent on an external entity to save them from themselves. That is the purview of a deity, not other humans to provide.