can anyone tell me the main difference's between em? I haven't played 1.6 bc i have Source so why do people still prefer 1.6 over source?

To be honest I don't really know why other than that perhaps a lot of the people that play Counterstrike1.6 still play on low end computers.

I've found that they both play almost exactly the same although there are some things that make CS1.6 a little more annoying I guess such as having to buy primary ammo(which im sure most people have binds to do stuff like that).  Also it seems to be harder to find some actual games in 1.6 as in there a lot more fake servers i come across as well as just not "normal" games that I would enjoy.(sorta like if you go to play Warcraft 3 and all you find is people playing Dota).  This problem can eventually be solved by favoriting servers so you dont have to search.

But yeah I dont really know why 1.6 is still as popular as it is today.
Stats from steam at time of this post:
Current Players Peak Today Game

13,085 76,059 Counter-Strike: Source
12,217 57,801 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
12,116 76,021 Counter-Strike
8,696 22,168 Team Fortress 2
8,382 24,347 Sid Meier's Civilization V
7,327 18,917 Left 4 Dead 2
7,299 40,641 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
4,045 25,786 Football Manager 2011
3,922 12,566 Fallout New Vegas
3,843 16,662 Call of Duty Black Ops

It wasnt until the last few months that CS:S finally has been above CS1.6  and i think it's because of the update to CS:S that came out this summer I think that added achievements and revenge kills etc.

I like CS:S better(if i have a machine that can play it) if i'm on my laptop I will play 1.6

CS 1.6 runs off the Half-Life Engine there for the Graphic are not as good as CS:S and CS:S runs of the Source Engine there for there is better Physics

black ops ftw

black ops ftw

COD 3 FTW COD 4 Epic FTW COD 5.. meh COD 6 ok.... COD 7 (Black Ops) ....7 games is enough time to start doing something new

Went it first came out I hated source, I was an avid 1.6 player and was a ringer for some cal teams briefly.  Something about the aiming and physics threw my game off, but I liked the new graphics and maps enough that I kept playing source and now I suck at 1.6...figures

besides the physics and graphics, a huge difference is the type of games and maps you will find in the two games.  1.6 had waaaay cooler custom maps in my opinion.
Maps with full amusement parks complete with giant rideable roller-coasters, knife maps with lots of drive-able vehicles, and DE_WALLMART was my all time favorite.  No one makes maps like that for source, maybe because they are harder to design, idk. 

i have played 1.6 and source and i agree that source is much better. not only does the game run better in my opinion but the physics are just amazing. thanks

My PC can only handle 1.6 for competitive cs play, so i guess that is the main reson for others too

Source is like an updated half-life engine very close in physics thankfully, I played CS as a HL mod and long b4 steam ,I think they feel the same only 1.6 is faster.To answer ? why play a knock off play the 1st/best is one > Source is too easy I've heard alot and the older computer is valid but it works the opposite way as well.Unless it's changed we couldn't run 1.6 using Vista as OS.....That's why I started playing source 1 year ago.

[JackMonroe]

Played Cal on both 1.6 and Source.  They would never admit it (you know, counter-strike players and their egos) but it pretty much boils down to them having a bad computer most of the time.  Got to love that counter-strike staying power though.  New COD comes out like every 6 months, is on top for a week, then CS takes over again.  Amazing.  Oh and to above, I seem to be able to play 1.6 and CZ just fine on Windows 7.