I always felt that "D" looked distorted, and found "E" to be a step back towards what I considered the classic shape.
This, very much this.
I do not understand people who say the E doesn't fit the look, that it isn't an enterprise. Compared to what exactly? Somebody explain to me how the D fits the design lineage, especially how it does and the E doesn't. The E is much much closer in concept to the original model, with elements such as the circular deflector and shuttle bay at the aft of the engineering hull.
The D's nacelles do not even rise to or above the saucer. I would argue that the D is the most un-Enterprise design... sans the NX, but the NX was to denote a time before the standard. Also, the NX was supposedly planned to have been refit, gaining a proper engineering hull.
I do not hate the Galaxy class. but I did get the feeling that it was a floating palace, that despite having TNG-era weaponry and capabilities that it was more of a symbol of starfleet and the era rather than a ship that pulled its weight. They gave it enough phaser power and a large torp bay, enough to handle most common threats of the time. However, as the show went on it started to fall behind. Again, that phaser gave us a huge array. The overall size could give an imposing angle. However, you can argue that it wasn't as well armed compared to other star-fleet vessels if scaled up. it would be about the same or maybe even less. yes, we got those fancy type X phaers, however it always seemed to me that the D fought with bard more than bite.
I suppose for a ship of exploration that is ok, however what is questionable is allocating so many resources to one ship.
Would it not be more effective to have two or maybe three ships, armed bout as well (comparatively) regarding arcs and output?
The Galaxy class is bloated, and too much of a target. compare it to a Romulan D'Derix class. The Romulans had a bigger ship (maybe not in terms of volume though?) but they also gave it plenty of disrupters to protect their investment.
There's a clear message with the D. People say, but the D isn't a military ship but was Kirks's a military ship? Not specifically though TOS clearly drivers a more military format. Even if Kirk's wasn't a warship, Starfleet was clearly more militarily minded. Ships weren't lavish. I do not think this can be attributed to technology alone. Starfleet couldn't afford not to run a tight ship, or flaunt their wealth. Practicality was key.
I see the E as moving back toward that point. Cutting the bloat, getting back to mission critical systems and mission-specific paradigm. No family quarters, no excess labs and resource drains. An exploration vessel isn't the same as a vessel dedicated multiple on-going science experiments.
I think the Galaxy tried too much to do everything and in that regard it is pretty well rounded and a good choice for a flagship or command vessel, but it is not going to excel at any specific mission other than being a well-rounded platform. The Nebulae i would concur excelled at being a more affordable and modular version of this schema.
I will say this for the D. It grows on you. I find it much more elegant now than i did, having a deeper appreciation for what it is. It was built for beauty shots though arguably some angles are better than others.
I think some of its smoothness should have put put into the Sovy. The Sovy is smooth, sleek, although it could have been much smoother if it wasn't overly detailed. That has always been a slight disappointment. Though really, the only gripe I have with it is that the impulse engines are 'caged in' which without a work-around would interfere with the direction of the thrust.
I hear "it is sad that ships will take after the E"
Ships are going to take after the general movie and post TNG-style. That's just the natural evolution of it, and it isn't impractical. I don't think every new ship has to follow that route however cutting-edge mission critical and specific ships will be built tight, to the need of them.
The big thing I think many people hate is the lack of the "neck" but... the neck has always been a weakness and design flaw... really. When it was first introduced it clearly defined design elements and worked to establish the icon. Is it practical however from an engineering standpoint? To be fair...
Keep in mind as well, that as the ship gets bigger the neck becomes more of an issue when it comes to structural integrity... and take a look at how the design of the D affects its warp-field. See how it makes it less uniform?
What happens when you subject a ship like the D to the stresses of a slipstream tunnel? That isn't a primary concern yet, but future ships will have to account for it.
Aerodynamics and dissipation of hull stress may not have been an issue TNG and prior, however we aren't dealing with Scotty's physics anymore.
On thing I do tend to agree with tough, with those who are fans of the D. it could have had a refit and had plenty more years. It does not make sense to show this is plausible numerous times in the show and not even consider it in the movies, especially if the issue was mostly with internal sets.
Though while i miss the phase-lance I'm glad we don't have to deal with that third nacelle.
I'd like to see someone take the Galaxy and perhaps turn it into a command carrier or figure how to optimize those mission specific strengths.
I do think 1701-E still retains some vestigages of it's chicken-in-a-pan heritage, even though Eaves' modifications to the design lessen it somewhat. From some angles I'm sure I can still see it. 
