I didn't become Christian until I was 18, but the Bible alone was preached pretty strongly in the places I was learning, though I probably didn't hear the terms sola scriptura or sola fide for a year or so afterwards. It is primarily these two doctrines that led me away from the Protestantism that I was involved with. I still read books on the subject of sola scriptura from time to time, in case I was wrong, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet. I came to see that there are two types of sola scriptura:
1) The lesser position, which IMO is the only sola scriptura position that can be effectively defended in reality (as opposed to theory); the Anglicans hold to such a position if I understand them correctly. For this position, it would be more accurate to call Scripture prime rather than alone, but people still maintain that all that is necessary for salvation is in Scripture. IMO, if it were placed on a continuum, this lesser position is actually further away from the other (strong) sola scriptura position, and closer to the beliefs of St. Vincent of Lerins who also thought that Scripture was "sufficient" but in need of an interpreter.
2)The stronger position, which IMO is not defendable except in theory, says that Scripture really is the only source of spiritual information that we have. Period. This of course is a self-refuting doctrine, for if it was the only source of information, then we would, of necessity, need to find within it's pages a list of the canon. Since there is no such list in Scripture, an additional authority or source of inspiration is needed. Those holding to the strong position would make various clarifications about the Holy Spirit guiding people to the truth, and how really no one was using a different authority but only discerning the truth, but in the end this position cannot escape moving towards the lesser sola scriptura position on the continuum when it tries to defend itself.
I just read a book last month that manifests this activity among the sola scriptura positions very discernably. The book is titled Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine, and is by R.C. Sproul. In this book, Sproul constantly emphasises the importance of sola scriptura, but then also constantly qualifies what he is saying (though sometimes he does vice versa). Thus, what happens is that he makes a firm statement, and then qualifies it to the point that the first statement means very little by itself, and is even in fact misleading by itself.
Anyway, most people probably would not fall exactly on the greater or lesser sola scriptura position, or the orthodox position for that matter. But fwiw, this IMO is how such a continuum might look...