My FF cache folder is where it's supposed to be in XP SP3, not in a custom location. CC finds it with no trouble, but deletes the whole cache folder, not just the contents. FF is slow to start the next time I launch it. The first thing it does is create the new cache folder. Is there a setting (I'm just getting started today with CC, and love it, but have lots to learn) that will make CC empty the folder but leave the folder?
Wisewiz
After adding, include files only . . 
Thank you so much. That answer gave me more than I hoped for. I'm off to tweak away happily now.
wait, I think kroozer's answer is backwards, as this will just double clean Firefox cache. Ccleaner should be emptying not deleting by default try to uncheck the following in ccleaner and see if you no longer have the problem
Firefox Compactdatabase
Firefox sessions
Please Note: It seems my Post was incorrect and that it does remove the entire cache folder
IMHO this is not what it should do (I didn't experience the same slow down but I can understand).
The developers read all threads and hopefully will see this as an error and fix it
My FF runs smooth with these settings . . 
Occasionally I analyze and clean the ☐ unticked items individually. Win7 x64, Vista x86, CC 3.27
It may run smoothly, but it has to create a new cache folder every time you use CCleaner with Internet Cache checked under Firefox. That's just more writing to the disk, and fragmenting. It's no really big deal, but since I check my caches for all three browsers every night before I shut down for the night, when I started using CCleaner to replace the antique Empty Temp Folders 2.8.3 (which has the options of emptying any folders INSIDE your cache and leaving those folders in the cache folder, or emptying the whole cache, folders and all, but leaving the cache folder itself there), I immediately noticed that I saw an (almost) empty TIFs and an empty Chrome Cache folder, but got a popup from Windows that said "There AIN'T no Cache folder there no more" or words to that effect when I tried to check my Firefox cache folder. Thought it was worth checking out here.
So is it possible we could have a 3.28.1 with the Firefox-Cache-deletion tweaked?
the developers read all threads but never comment. However it is possible that they will see your point and change the cleaning logic for the cache folder.
Thanks, Nergal. May you sleep well in Serenity tonight.
(Oh, and fix the word "explanation" in your sig when you have a min.)
(Oh, and fix the word "explanation" in your sig when you have a min.)
woo hoo! Fixed, thanks
The latest version of CCleaner is still wiping out the Firefox Cache folder, not just its contents. Is there some explanation for this? Is there something about the FF Cache folder that makes it necessary to delete the *folder* in order to clean it out?
Speed? Recreation of a folder (update a couple of entries in the MFT) should be very fast - unnoticeable really.
Speed? Recreation of a folder (update a couple of entries in the MFT) should be very fast - unnoticeable really.
Whilst that is how Firefox ought to work - and very probably would work even on XP + SP3 if Firefox was totally removed and then cleanly installed,
I cannot help wondering if in-place updates forced by the crazy rabid update cycles have corrupted the installed code and/or the user profiles,
and perhaps this particular installation spends a while trying to add contents to a Cache folder before it recognises the Cache folder needs to be created.
There have been requests for CCleaner to remove empty folders and this has been resisted with the argument that some Applications create requisite folders upon installation,
and they are broken if the "empty" folder is removed.
Ideally Piriform should accept that argument as applying to all of its cleaning rules for all applications - including Firefox.
The alternative is for individual users to perform clean installs of any application which has lost the capability of RE-creating afresh its own folders.
Thanks for that affirmation, Alan. It doesn't seem like a cockroach, just a tiny bug like a common ant, but I think it's worth either changing or explaining (if it can't be changed without affecting something else).