Don't take this the wrong way. Pete was a great player but anyone feel he relied too much on his serve but Federer is a more complete player. He can hit any shot, good at net, good serve, forehand, backhand, good footwork, etc. Really if they were the same age, Federer would win the h2h.
Well that may have been true towards the end of his career but many people seem to forget when Pete was in his prime he was the most complete player of his generation. He could beat the best from anyhwere on the court- baseline, net, serve was of course always lethal.
At the time I thought there would never be a player who could move so effortlessly and make the game look as ridiculously as he did- of course until Roger came along that is.
But people always remember Pete as a serve volleyer and that just wasn't true. For large parts of matches on surfaces other than grass he would engage in baseline rallies, work the points and he was pretty good at it even though his backhand was a comparative weakness. And to this day I have never seen a player with a more explosive on the run forehand Federer included. Pete would be in the most ridiculous positions seemingly impossible positions to get the ball back into play from and suddenly he would zing a forehand into the corner like a bullet which was either a clean winner or gave him control of the point to finish it off.
And there was no one better at handling the overhead smash - that "air Sampras" slamdunk is the stuff of legends
Sorry for the rant but it really irks me how people remember Sampras for his last years on tour when his baseline game was really not up to par with the new generation and he basically did rely a lot more on his serve and his movement was not as crisp.