So addressing the rotational speed difference (300 vs 360). I was under the impression from other posts elsewhere that it could be compensated for just running at a higher CPU speed. I installed a Sprinter II type board from Ian in AU. I also ordered 120ns 4116's to help ensure I could maintain the higher CPU reliably. I later found this wasn't totally true, but I'll come back to it.
Yeah, that’s a big bum steer you got there.
The reason CPU speed upgrades are mentioned in relation to 8” disks on the TRS-80 is because these machines don’t use DMA to transfer bytes as they stream towards or off the disk controller, it has to use software PIO. And a 1.77mhz Z80 is *barely* fast enough to do that at the speeds either a single-density 8” or a double-density 5.25” disk runs at. (250khz bitrate) *Double Density* 8” drive operation, which runs at 500kbps, thus requires a speed-up board.
To be extra clear, the speed of the CPU has no direct effect on the bitstream to/from the actual drive, that’s independently driven by the oscillators in the disk controller hardware. (Which as I mentioned, are not set up to drive 8” disks unless you have one of those stated mods.) It’s just about being able to keep up with the controller.
Anyway, the rotation of the drive is kind of a red herring in this discussion; effectively it just means that at a given bitrate the faster rotating drive will store less per track because the track is effectively “shorter”. (But the faster disk might be more reliable because the bit written to the medium will be “wider”.) You might be able to compensate for that with PDRIVE, maybe, by specifying fewer sectors per track? (IE, my vague recollection is that a single density Model I disk has 10 sectors; if you took a drive and tuned its speed way outta whack up to 360 RPM maaaaybe you could tell PDRIVE you had an 8 sector disk and it would handle it?) Not sure, though, if the drivers will whine about the index pulses being too close together, or would erroneously add wider inter-sector spacing? But it would just be a software problem in this case.
… but that above is referring to a faster spinning 5.25” drive. I’m honestly not sure if a 8” drive would be able to handle the mini floppy data rates successfully. Drives have pulse recovery goo between the read head and the to-the-computer data lines and they might not handle a too-slow-by-half data stream correctly, depending on the drive? Anyway. There would be no point to this even if it worked, because the resulting disk would hold *less* data than a mini floppy and you wouldn’t be able to read it in another system that has the correct controller.