I thought that the Trek Y-bikes worked pretty well, I had a Y-5 aluminum, though it seemed like most of the bikes back then had crummy front suspensions.

The bike I raced in '96 was a ProFlex 856 with elastomer springs and ODS oil dampers. The bike begged for a longer and better front suspension. As it was the bike didn't go downhill well, and put me over the bars more than once.
The ProFlex rear suspension had a high pivot, so that it's anti-squat and "chain growth" behavior depended on what chainring that you were in. Somewhere between the middle and big rings, the suspension seemed optimal, pedaling wise. Using the granny ring caused the suspension to extend with each pedal stroke, and with a fast-kicking spin it would find incredible climbing traction. Climbing while pedaling slowly would mean that if traction was broken for an instant, the entire pedal stroke was like pedaling on ice, this because of the suspension compressing in response to any sudden reduction in chain tension.
Early on, I believe Girvin/ProFlex trademarked "Dig In", which appeared on a decal on the swingarm, and which was meant to characterize the high-pivot design's anti-squat force under increased chain tension while in the smaller two rings.
The earlier, 1st-gen Cannondale, Trek and GT hi-pivot frames had even higher main pivots, and the suspension was thus set up with high enough spring-preload to effect a static zero-sag. Those bikes actually sprinted very well if the spring preload was set high enough for the rider's weight, since the suspension remained locked out by the chain's tension pulling the axle forward under the main pivot.