I don't think you understand how graphics work, buddy. CS has worse graphics than CSS, we all agree. But when running CS at full power and CSS at its lowest power, CS graphics look godly compared to it and probably still run better. If you run CSS at lowest, you can't tell the difference between a pixelated enemy and a damn box. If they were to create a similar CS that could run on high resolution, but with SLIGHTLY worse graphics for mid-range PC's we could all be happy as long as it looked better than CS 1.6 and ran just as well. I guess I am into quality. Some people buy old Camaro's because they look good even though it will run like shit because it is old (if you don't mantain it even then its too much work.) I buy a reliable Toyota Truck that will run great forever. Your car may look better, but mine runs better. All opinions i guess.
Unless you get an FPS below 20 on the Video Stress Test you really shouldn't complain about the performance (and even then, it's not Valve's fault that your computer won't run HL2/CSS well).