I've confirmed the issues are either with Mach or with my xmls. Something with my xmls are hogging the CPU. Here is a synopsis:
Here is an update, I've done some diagnostics and discovered some interesting behavior. I uninstalled Mach completely, deleted the C/mach folder, uninstalled the parallel driver and even deleted all instances of mach in the registry. I then reinstalled Mach, the problems were still there and I was monitoring the CPU usage. When either the default xml or the unaltered backup xml was used the CPU usage hovered around 60% when sitting idle. If I tried to jog it at 100IPM it would spike and flatline at 100%, jogging at 20IPM was smooth and the CPU usage hit a high of about 80-90%, jogging at 30IPM was stuttery and the CPUs went up to around 100%. When I started mach with just the mach mill default profile the CPU usage dropped significantly and hovered around 10%. Indicating something about my xmls are hogging all the CPU. I then uninstalled it completely again and reinstalled earlier versions of Mach beginning with the current lock down 3.043.022 and working backwards repeating the process because I had updated to the current version as the demo version installed on the computer was an earlier version (I can't remember the version number). I went through about 5 versions going back to 3.043.012 with no luck. Then by accident I installed 3.042.20 which was a circa 2009 version and all of a sudden it worked. The CPUs were much lower around 20% with mach running my xmls and the jogging was smooth and responsive, the DROs updated in real time again, and command G0 moves were smooth at 100IPM.
I'm not sure what version came on the computer but I would like to know because although not current it at least worked. However even the current version only hogs all the CPU and bogs down the system when using my xmls so I'm wondering if they are corrupted somehow (even though I've never directly loaded the backup xml that was on the desktop into mach, I always make a copy and put it in the Mack folder to use it) or perhaps the newer versions of mach just don't like them.